Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1115

Archive 1110

←

Archive 1113

Archive 1114

Archive 1115

Archive 1116

Archive 1117

→

Archive 1120

"the citation requirements of Wikipedia"

Let me start by saying I have written many different forms of papers and articles, so there was an expectation of drafting and editing to be done here.

I have several sets of revisions now from those colleagues still able to contribute and mentioned in these articles. Such is the interest to maintain these important pieces of digital history.

Having re read the articles looking at the citations used, whilst many are from Wikipedia itself there are others independent references used.

In this context, its virtually impossible to meet the citation requirements of Wikipedia.

If someone explains practically how this can be achieved then we will listen?

regards Sophietwice (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have titled this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you are writing about Draft:A Mechanism for the Perpetual Preservation of Electronic Records of Value. Yes, its referencing is utterly inadequate. For one thing, Wikipedia is not usable as a source. (There are other major problems with this draft too.) If it is indeed impossible to meet the citation requirements of Wikipedia for part of a draft, then that part must be deleted; if it is impossible for the whole draft, then that draft must be abandoned: no article can be constructed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is an existing article, say for example Kenneth Thibodeau, then putting double brackets [[ ]] creates a Wikilink, but this does not count as a reference. Also, given that you have had two drafts declined, specify which you are asking questions about. For the "A Mechanism..." draft, it appears to be an effort to document a 1996-97 project that culminated in an unpublished technical report about a proposed system that was never implemented. In my opinion, there is no potential for this becoming a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Separately, the User:Sophietwice Has "SophieTwice is a publication Avatar for Business Compass in St Lo, Manche, France, business registration number:8313534016" This is therefor a non-allowed name. Either go through a name-change process, or else stop using that account and start a new account with a User name that is only for you as an individual. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to that, if you want a username that includes the orgname, something like ""Kim at Sophietwice" is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request edits

 88.97.62.209 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, IP user. Please read WP:EDITREQUEST for advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor

 2A00:23C6:6087:8300:7C1D:E2DA:AB5A:E45 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Princess Persnickety (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Video citation

Can I cite some parts of my draft with a French video, provided that it gives the needed info? (Click here for the vide? Excellenc1 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, the language that the video is in is not an issue. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, per WP:NOENG, if you can, add a translation of the relevant bit to the cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So does that mean I can add a translated transcript of the video (which I have created)? Excellenc1 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 I'm going to assume you don't mean a 53 min transcript, that'd pass MOS:QUOTE and go into WP:COPYVIO.

I'd cite it like this (it will look "normal" in non-talk space) , and don't forget to add time (as in when in video). Use the quote parameter for relevant quote, in English or both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Someone can help me to edit the page ? Thank you

Hi friends , someone can help how to edit the page ? I have 100% proved about some edit but I don’t know how to do to get approved. Thank You Tim.1944.Au (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tim.1944.Au: I think perhaps you meant to post at Wikipedia:Teahouse? This talk page is for discussions about the article Teahouse, and Wikipedia:Teahouse is a help forum for new editors. --bonadea contributions talk 18:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've moved this from Talk:Teahouse. I assume this question is related to User talk:BlameRuiner#Alessandro Venezia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tim.1944.Au As BlameRuiner has explained to you several times, you knowing something to be true is not sufficient for that information to be in a Wikipedia article. W requires what it calls reliable source references. Since early June, several IP addresses (hopefully not you, not logged in) and you from your account have been adding information to the article about Alessandro Venezia, all reverted as not verified. The article has been short-term semi-protected to stop the IP postings. The right place to take this dispute is to the Talk page of the article, i.e., not BaameRuiner's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Help create a page for Mark Hill, Hairdresser

Would anybody please help create a page for Mark Hill, Hairdresser? I have all of the information but I am finding it difficult. Thank you. Gdatky (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is mysterious. I see no trace of the earlier draft. Anyway, I suggest that you first get some experience editing articles that already exist, and then start your draft at Draft:Mark Hill (hairdresser). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Draft:Mark Hill was undeleted, but has nothing to do with your desire to create an article about the hairdresser Mark Hill. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for a Second Opinion

I have spent a considerable amount of time over the past four months working on an entry for an innovation expert called Uday Phadke who has recently developed an insightful innovation framework that many startup companies have found very useful, and which readers of Wikipedia might benefit from. I worked with this person briefly about twenty years ago, which is how I know him. The innovation framework is one of a number of approaches I have taught to my undergraduates and MBA students as a business school professor. In spite of multiple revisions, extra references,etc. the reviewer I have been in dialogue with has rejected the article. Currently we have hit an impasse because the reviewer wants to treat Phadke as an academic, which he is not, even though for several years he was the Entrepreneur in Residence at the Judge Business School in Cambridge. Instead, Phadke is a highly regarded practitioner with some academic experience - what in American business school would be called an Adjunct Professor. I believe the standard of the contribution is higher than that of a number of other entries which I have easily found and shown to the reviewer. What I would like is for someone else to take a look at the entry, and give me a second opinion. The entry is at Draft:Uday Phadke. Jeter1956talk Jeter1956 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink to Draft:Uday Phadke. Declined twice (not rejected). You had a dialogue with the second reviewer, on that reviewer's Talk page, and got some advice. My opinion is that the article cannot be accepted as written. The entire Triple-chasm innovation section needs to be deleted. The article is supposed to be about Phadke, not an in-depth expounding on his business theory. Oh, and delete all the 'refs' that are no more than mentions of his having been speaker at a conference (for example 22 & 23). If you get this down to half as long and half as many refs, there is a change it can be accepted. Lastly, there are a lot of bad and weak articles at Wikipedia (see WP:Other stuff exists). Mentioning such is not justification for your draft. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeter1956: It suffers from being too verbose. A large part of the article is about triple scale up, and if that content was notable enough on its own, you could do what is called a “content fork” and create an article just on that. Then, the triple scale up section in his article would only be a few sentences with a link to the main article. It’s also a bit jargony, making it sonewhat inaccessible to laymen. I think if you shortened it considerably, and rewrote it in clearer language, while keeping the sources, you would have a better chance of getting it accepted. One way to do this would be to remove anything that’s not sourced, even if that leaves the article with narrative holes. And I know it’s nitpicky, but I found the capitalization of Vector to be annoying. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

2011 Oddbods

")!! ^££^"(^ (2011 Oddbods) YougurtDoggy2005 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@YougurtDoggy2005: Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Can administrators block each other?

Can administrators block each other? --Crocusfleur (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Crocusfleur (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes if necessary. It has also happened by accident. ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with an enormous number of dead links at once

Hi, I'm wondering what we should do, when we come across an article that has an enormous number of problems. The article that's triggered this is Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam. It has a vast number of references, but loads of them are either completely broken (404), or link to pages that probably once reflected the subject of the article, but have since moved on and are no longer relevant. I know there's a tag for dead-links, but I don't know if it's helpful to test every reference one by one and add umpteen tags. On top of that, almost none of them look like independent, reliable sources, so I'd like to add a citations-needed tag, but not with the aim at getting more; I'd like to see quality rather than quantity. The article has just had an enormous deletion followed by an enormous reversion, probably because of citation issues and the fact it looks a bit promotional (but I'm only guessing the motivation; there was no edit-summary for deletion). The talk-page has an ages-old argument against deletion, so I'm guessing issues have arisen in the past. The subject is probably a jolly good person and may be very notable, but this article really needs someone who knows about him to do some proper referencing. How should a case like this be tagged in a way likely to generate constructive contribution? Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You, or a bot, or somebody can look up the dead pages at the Wayback Machine (as has already been done, successfully, for a lot of the links). -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagged with essay template. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One bot you can use to run this is IA Bot- you can access it by going to an article, clicking "View History", then "Fix dead links". That bot also gives you an option to add archives for non-dead links too. I ran it on that page and it found and added 15 archive URLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I will remember it for next time. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding an image to an article

I tried to insert an image but it seems I have to do some thing before that? Any comment? Awtar-Pal (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Awtar-Pal, WP:IMAGE is a place to start. If the image is on [Wikimedia Commons] it's pretty easy, but any image must satisfy WP/Commons strict rules abou copyright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

False positive

Why the bot has reverted my edit?? --Freeklane (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Freeklane: An error, which happens. You can report the false positive here: Wikipedia:CBFP, which may help improve Cluebot's future work. RudolfRed (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:  Done, thank you.--Freeklane (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Procedure

When going back after several days to revise a sentence in a discussion, should I sign the end of that sentence or should I write that the sentence has been revised? I'm trying to bring clarity, but I want to be open about it. Thanks! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Kingfisher: You could use the strike code <s></s> to strike through the old content, and show the new revised comment next to it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Thanks, TimTempleton! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Transair Flight 810

I hear a Trans Executive Airlines Boeing 737-200, registered as N810TA makes emergency water landing on coast off Honolulu after pilots reported engine trouble. The plane ditch into the off coast Honolulu, but both pilots rescued and survived. Please someone edit it? Lkas123 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Incident is now in Trans Executive Airlines with a citation. Could be added to the list of 737 incidents. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding a subject's date of birth and age

Hello everyone! I'm new to this so please excuse any newbie errors.

I have a general question, but with a specific example. The following page is the example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalanda_Young

While doing research for a story, I noticed that this subject has no date of birth listed. Upon further research, I found that none of the subject's bios from other sources included a date of birth or age either. However, I ultimately found this information by using the search tool, MyLife (a people finder site I have a membership with).

My question is actually two questions. First, are sites such as MyLife, Whitepages, PeopleFinder, etc. acceptable sources of information here (especially in cases where there are no alternatives)? Finally, if it is acceptable to update the subject's page with that information, how do I do so?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. I couldn't include the specific MyLife link because apparently it's not allowed. I'm not sure why. YankeeTheRebel (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

DoB/DoD/age should be treated as contentious and thus need stronger sourcing than a Whitepages listing or PeopleFinder profile. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@YankeeTheRebel: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#MyLife. GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Am I correct in surmising that Wikipedia's stance is that no dob information is better than information from a people finder site (even if it's accurate)?

Correct. (This is in part because of the tendency for actors/actresses to lie about/dispute their age due to ageism within the industry.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

YankeeTheRebel It may not help you in this case, but a confirmed social media account (they have a checkmark), like a tweet that says "I'm 35 today!" can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

talk:Karenthewriter|talk]]) 03:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• @YankeeTheRebel: The problem of sourcing was addressed above, but in addition, there are privacy considerations. Per WP:DOB: Wikipedia includes (...) dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If (...) the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. If you have to hunt for more than five minutes to find even the year, I would say it is not "widely published by reliable sources". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to the information not being widely published by reliable sources, it's kind of funny to think that once I submit the story I'm working on, that will no longer be considered the case and the subject's Wikipedia page will likely be updated (not by me) using my story as a reference. I have a feeling that this type of situation (repackaging) is a common occurrence. In any case, I understand that it is how it is here and I appreciate you all letting me know how it is lol. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeTheRebel (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Making a comparison to an artist in the past

I'd like to source an article from the New York Times but not sure of the words "somewhat like John J. Audubon" would be considered worthy of comparison. Here is the excerpt: Although he assembles and finishes his work back home in Cornwall, England, he is, somewhat like John J. Audubon, a naturalist who must sketch and paint at the site to achieve the authenticity that suits him.

Thanks! Views4Days (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Views4Days: It doesn't really sound like a comparison that would be quoted in a Wikipedia article. If the painter's work had been compared to that of Audubon it would have been a different matter, since Audubon is one of the best-known bird painters of all time, but comparing their modes of working in this way doesn't seem all that relevant. That is my take on it, and others might differ. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

PearPop

Hello! I came across a company called PearPop recently that has some pretty major investors like Alexis Ohanian and Guy Oseary. I was considering working on a draft for them but wanted to see if the community here agrees that it passes the notability guideline for companies? They have been written about in TechCrunch, Billboard, Fast Company and others. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Grimothy29 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Grimothy29 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would double-check your "TechCrunch" link. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

TechCrunch and Rolling Stone also look good. I'd give it a shot, but maybe keep the first version somewhat simple and avoid promotional material. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton and Jéské Couriano: Oops - here is the correct TechCrunch link. And thank you for the input, Tim. I agree. A lot of what I was able to find mentions some promotional information but I'll attempt a draft that avoids that. Thank you. Grimothy29 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My pending new pages: Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr and Dr. Cyril O Spann Medical Office (a National Register of Historic Places site)

Hello everyone! So pleased to be invited to this group, with the successful submission of two pages for review last night. I am glad that it has gotten somewhat easier to create these pages.

I hope I don't have to wait five months for my pages to be approved!

For the page I've created for my artist friend - he sent me some images that its ok for me to add. I'm wondering if I can add to a page once it has been submitted for review.

For the historic site page, I'd like to add the map, coordinates and additional information that the other national register site pages have, but I'm using the visual editor as the easy way to create pages, and I don't know how to add this information to the page.

Open to suggestions and tutoring!

ProfessorKaiFlai ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai On images: "he sent me some images that its ok for me to add" is not good enough, WP is very picky about copyright. Assuming the person who sent them to you owns the copyright, which usually means they took them themselves with their own camera, the simple solution is that they upload it themself with the process that starts here. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr. does not show that it has been submitted. The other has been submitted. Yes, you can continue to edit drafts while waiting for a review. IMPORTANT: You state here that RWB is your "artist friend", meaning that you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) which you need to declare on your User page. And FYI - the review system is not a queue. Reviewers look at the list and select what they want to review. So, could be days, weeks or months. David notMD (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I used 'artist friend' as a figure of speech, we have never even met! He is an artist I follow on FB and he asked me if I would help him with his page. I am doing so uncompensated. 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

Hello, ProfessorKaiFlai. A Wikipedia article is not in any way at all for the benefit of its subject. Of course many subjects do get benefit from the existence of articles about them, but from Wikipedia's point of view that is incidental and irrelevant. If the artist has asked you to "help him with his page", then you are potentially editing with an interest contrary to that of Wikipedia. Thus you necessarily have a COI. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes - 'potentially' is the key word. But I see myself more as tech support than someone who has a conflict. But this is all new to me and I appreciate the feedback ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

The other article appears to be more about Cyril O. Spann than about his medical office, even though the latter has a National Registry listing (http://schpr.sc.gov/index.php/Detail/properties/55476). David notMD (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - how can I find my draft article to make corrections?ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

Hello again, ProfessorKaiFlai. If you pick "Contributions" (top right of the page in the default skin) it will give you a list of your recent edits, and you can pick the link to any page you have edited. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Found it, thank you! It must take a minute to migrate to the Contributions page. Now let's see how long it takes to get them reviewed - hopefully before Christmas! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

Your Spann draft still cannot decide if it is about Spann or about the building. If the building, then the entire Civil rights activism section needs to be deleted. And for RWB, you must declare your COI. Even though you have not met in person, you are in communication ("he asked me if I would help him"). That counts. Declaring does not prejudice a reviewer. Not declaring, does. David notMD (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Vicki_Sue_Robinson / Wilton CT.

suggestion.....adding Vicki Sue Robinson (70's disco singer) to notable people that lived in Wilton CT. page. Thank you.... 104.175.72.82 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

how do I suggest an article about me

How do I suggest wikipidia or editors to write about me Yoyokip (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yoyokip: Welcome, and thanks for not doing this yourself. You can make your request at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you pass Wikipedia Notability guidelines for people? Most people don't, since Wikipedia is not a LinkedIn or Facebook. Also, have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RA is a graveyard. If you REALLY believe you quality for Wikipedia's definition of notability - people you don't know published articles in newspapers, magazines, news websites, about you, then you can attempt an autobiography, even though Wikipedia recommends not to. See WP:AUTO. If no one is writing about you, don't start. Could just be WP:TOOSOON in your almost-famous career. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on moving copyright-free images to Wikimedia

Are there any good guides that step through (1) what images no longer fall under Copyright restrictions (i.e., they were made before this year and are no longer bound by copyright restrictions); (2) where to find these images - Library of Congress, Flickr, etc.; (3) general guidance on uploading to Wikimedia?

I've experienced the Flickr -> Wikimedia bot, and it's nice that it automates the process for me, but I'd like to be able to us other tools besides FIST and CC Search to find more images, but am a bit restricted on the cloudy world of copyright. Engineerchange (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Engineerchange: There’s some general information here wikipedia:Copyrights. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Engineerchange: Answering (1): commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart plus WP:URAA are my go-to table for copyright terms. Of course, there are exceptions on top of exceptions (the common traps are WP:FOP for buildings/outside sculptures and the country-dependent threshold of originality for company logos).

I cannot help much about (2). For (3), Help:Files#Uploading_files and the Commons pages it links to is a good start, unless you want something more detailed? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this is great and what I was looking for. This Hirtle chart is very clear. --Engineerchange (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Engineerchange, What sort of free images are you looking for (#2)? I may be able to help if you provide more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 - Generally I'm looking for older portraits and old building photos that are in the public domain but haven't made their way to Commons yet for more obscure, yet notable people/places in the United States. --Engineerchange (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

Hello, can someone format this page properly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_McDonell

There is a huge space for no reason. Xavierwraith (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Xavierwraith, there is no "huge space" currently in the article. But the thing in there is that the Article needs more citations to verify notability. You can add citations to the article if you wish. See WP:CITE for more information on Citing References in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelin Andrea (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xavierwraith: Looks like Kleinpecan kindly removed the "huge space" in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seeking review for Draft:Lokesh Chugh

I have created a page about lokesh chugh an eminent politician who is known for raising student matters, posted reference links too. kindly approve the page, followed all the guidelines that were required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lokesh_Chugh, this is the page link for reference--Muskaan sachdeva (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Muskaan sachdeva (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Muskaan sachdeva The draft Draft:Lokesh Chugh has not been submitted for formal review. If you submit it in its present state it will not be accepted. The reverences need to be embedded in the text, after the sentences they factually verify. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muskaan sachdeva: I added a template to your draft that provides lots of information about creating a draft, and a button to submit the draft for review. I also added a template to remind you to add footnotes before submitting the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Song Pages

Can you add the lyrics of a song to the song page? Nothing specific just general question. IFvoltronwasadragon... (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)IFvoltronwasadragon...

Hello @IFvoltronwasadragon..., and welcome! Song lyrics are usually under copyright. Even when they are not, it's rarely included in full. If the song/poem is in public domain and super short, it could be. Otherwise, you only quote the bits that need to be discussed, such as the bits that critics might have quoted when reviewing the song or album. See WP:NOTLYRICS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@IFvoltronwasadragon...: You can add an external link to the lyrics - see A Hard Day's Night (song)#External links as an example. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a problem? [again]

Does this draft have a problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Univision_Now  ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ItsJustdancefan, It seems like the article UNIVISION does not meet the notability criteria. See WP:NOTABILITY for more. There are not enough reliable sources of information for the article. The references are mostly Primary resources which not only is needed for the Draft. There is a huge need for WP:SECONDARYSOURCES for the Draft. Also, I am not an Admin or Moderator, but I just need to let you know the info I know. Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: As far as I can tell, the referencing has not gotten any better since the draft was declined. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, if no more sources are available. RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Better content is already here Univision#Univision NOW. Univision NOW can be a redirect for now. The nice thing about having the content as part of the Univision article is you only need one source. If you fork the content into its own article, the sourcing requirements are much higher. As more coverage occurs, you could consider it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Retitled. ItsJustdancefan, if you must have a second thread asking the same question as in the first, please give it a different title. -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded pictures - now where is my pending submission?

I would like to add the pictures I just uploaded to my submission that's under review. What's the easiest way to find it? ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, ProfessorKaiFlai. As I said elsewhere, pick "Contributions" from the top of the page. However, those images I have looked at from the ones you have uploaded to Commons are clearly copyright violations and are likely to be deleted shortly. You have claimed them as "own work" while identifying them as somebody else's work. Only the copyright holder has the right to donate them - and it would be unusual, though not impossible, for a cartoonist to be willing to license their work in such as way that anybody in the world may reuse or alter them for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute them - but that is the licence that Commons requires. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello - the cartoonist sent those to me for inclusion on the page, after letting him know that the images would then be available to people to use at will without asking for permission.

So do I need to word it in a different way, or get the cartoonist to upload them himself?ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

First, tell the cartoonist that if he uploads the images to Wikipedia, he will be giving up all control over any future use of his images by others, including commercial use. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can make sure he understands that and be explicit with him about it. Come to think of it, it would be easier just to not include the images of the comic strips and just include only the picture of the cartoonist. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

Requires that the person who took that photo upload it to Wikipedia Commons as own work. David notMD (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

which came first the chicken or the egg

 Josh168mcfc (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Josh168mcfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a forum for asking for help about using and editing Wikipedia, not for questions unrelated to those topics. That said, the egg came first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I asked Siri and he noted that there are egg timers, but no chicken timers. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:565:D9B3:211B:F1CD (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazon sells chicken timers. GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Josh168mcfc. Try looking this up in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The article you want is here: Chicken or the egg.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What was the rule that tells to cite the original article instead of yahoo, msn article(like for reuters)

On this talk page with Yae4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tor_Phone Greatder (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT might be applicable. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I remember reading an WP article, but I can't remember the name --Greatder (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What the?

Why when I reverted this IP users edit it gave me the longest edit summary ever? 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure I did not accidentally add the extra zeros yourself? Anton.bersh (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: I didn't add them. I just pressed the right arrow key and it gave me the longest edit summary ever. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@JennilyW: Then I recommend you file a bug report as described on Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Wikipedia is powered by Wikimedia software, which (like any software) has some ocasional bugs. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How to report someone who is adding various misrepresentative statements with references that cannot be checked

There is a person whom I've been interacting with repeatedly who continuously keeps adding content (regarding Islam) that promotes his own personal beliefs (as checked from his user page) with shady references that cannot be easily checked. For example, he keeps intentionally adding the idea of Iblis being a fallen angel as being a part of Islamic beliefs at the very top of a list with a reference from some French book without any ISBN or online link. The overwhelming of the 1.6 billion Muslims alive do not believe in this. He does not add clarifications as to which sect believes in this and does not make distinctions between the sects. The article Dajjal is a very good article in this regard which clarifies the beliefs of the different sects whereas the article Iblis is the exact opposite. The ideas are so convoluted that a reader will not be able to understand which sect believes in what clearly. Wikipedia is one of the most widely used encyclopaedia websites if not the most widely used one. Is it supposed to be some platform for self-promotion of such individuals? Such absurd mix-up will confuse people. Furthermore, he does not even seem to understand the English language when he is opposed but can clearly make legible edits on Wikipedia. I am a Sunni Muslim and such ideas are misrepresenting us! He keeps claiming that I am influenced by Salafism while he himself seems to promote what would be considered as clear-cut heretical ideas to Sunni Muslims. I am frustrated to such an extent that I cannot express it in words... Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: welcome to the Teahouse. The first and primary place to discuss the content of an article is that article's talk page, in this case Talk:Iblis. Please remember to assume good faith, that it, assume that editors who don't agree with you are nevertheless here to improve the encyclopedia. Your posts to Talk:Shaitan#images are a bit too confrontational and focus on the other editor and (what you assume to be) that editor's personal beliefs and opinions, rather than on whether specific sources or content meets Wikipedia's policies. If you are not able to reach a consensus on the article talk page, there are other venues to request third opinions or dispute resolution, but you can't do that before even trying to discuss it on the article talk page. Remember that there is no requirement that a source be available online, and that in itself does not make a source "shady"; also remember that ISBN is a relatively modern feature, and a book published before the 1970s will probably not have an ISBN. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Someone who keeps accusing me of Salafism is going to be confronted in such a manner. The accusations and confrontation regarding beliefs started on the side of the person being spoken of with me being on the receiving end. I hope that can also be seen very clearly. S/he does not even seem to be capable of differentiating between the theology of Sunni Orthodoxy and that of "Salafism". The other editor does feature that belief on his user page as a "fact" about Islam. It does matter because he is biased towards that understanding and his editing reflects that in that he preferred to feature that belief in the Wikipedia page about Iblis as well. In doing so, he is misrepresenting both Islam and Sunni Muslims on a platform like Wikipedia. The wikipedia article is not his personal blog where he can present things however he wants. He did update the citation with an ISBN after the previous reversion. No, it's not dated before 1970 and the book seems to be by a modernist reformist of Islam. His beliefs do not represent the mainstream and accepted beliefs of the Sunni Orthodoxy. The difference should be made clear in a nature similar to that of the article Dajjal so that the audience understands whose beliefs these are and are not misinformed!
Check:

1. https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/107284/is-iblis-really-from-the-jinn-why-is-iblis-blaming-allah-for-leading-him-astray/
2. https://islamqa.org/hanafi/mahmoodiyah/53564/who-is-satan-3/

- Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Making audiobook for articles

I want to make audiobooks for other articles similar to this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asteroid_Belt.ogg Where can I find the rules/protocols to follow while making these audiobooks for Wikipedia? Astroriya (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

report of edit warring at PIT maneuver

There must be some simpler way to report edit warring than to try following the directions at WP:Edit warring ... or perhaps this explains why people prefer to continue edit warring rather than seeking a resolution.

Anyway, I'm reporting edit warring at PIT maneuver. The offending user is User:AthensBureau, whose edits adding unsourced content have been reverted by 4 other editors. This has been going on since the unsourced content was added by User:Athensfbi in this pair of edits from 1 May 2021. Please stop the insanity! Fabrickator (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator I have blocked the user. Twinkle makes the edit warring report process easier. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: WP:ANEW is the appropiate noticeboard for edit-warring. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated Wikipedia entry on Dharampal as part of the centenary celebrations

Let me preface the question by stating that this is my first attempt to dialog with the Wiki community and I am here to understand and solve a problem related to the publication of an entry as given in the subject.

My student, Aishwarya Sudheendra had, over the last few weeks, made changes to the Wikipedia entry on Dharampal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharampal) with a version that we believe is more complete in terms of a summary of his life and work, appropriate references, and a photograph sourced from his daughter, Gita Dharampal. However, it appears that her edits have been removed. I also remember hearing that she was given a warning that persistence with its publication would lead to being barred from the platform.

I would like to know what the objections to the content she uploaded are and how one may go about resolving each of the objections. I plan to do this myself hopefully with helpful suggestions and hints from you. This task is very important to some of us (numbering around 80 or a 100) who - as students of Dharampal spread over India - are celebrating 2021-22 as the birth centenary year of Dharampal through a series of articles, seminars and the like across different platforms. As part of the celebrations, it was felt that an updated profile of Dharampal in Wikipedia would go a long way in promoting his work on India of the past and his vision for its future.

I request your help in helping me navigate these editorial waters till completion.

Dr. JK Suresh Jksuresh (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jksuresh, welcome to the teahouse, the edits contains Copyvio issues https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1027012907&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Justiyaya (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand more on my last reply, Wikipedia doesn't publish text taken/copied from a copyrighted source, but using copyrighted works as a citation, and explaining the information in the copyrighted work in your own way is allowed. WP:COPYVIO probably offers a better explanation. Justiyaya (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for responding so speedily to my SoS. I do hope I can provide a lengthy response later. At this time, a quick glance at the copy violation tool's output (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1027012907&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0) seems to indicate that the violations are classifiable into three types which I have described below. While some of the text needs rewriting, it may be noted that some of the problems may also have been an outcome of the fact that this article has been worked upon by several people, some of whom are authors of the cited works or editors of their compilations (e.g., Gita Dharampal, M.D. Srinivas, C.N. Krishnan, etc).

I will certainly come back with a more comprehensive response that takes into consideration all the violations that are indicated in the next few days’ time.

I do hope that I will continue to receive your inputs to resolve all pending issues completely.

Types of violations cited by the tool

=====================================

(a) commonly used phrases and clauses to describe a person. Examples:

(i) “…thinker, historian and political philosopher”,

(ii) ”… of the cultural, scientific and technological achievements of Indian society on the eve of the British conquest”

(iii) “Gandhiji’s call for Individual Satyagraha in October 1940”,

(iv) “…At the time of Partition, he was put in charge of the Congress Socialist Party centre for the rehabilitation of refugees from West Pakistan, and came in close contact with Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya and Ram Manohar Lohia, as well as with numer¬ous younger friends, such as L.C. Jain, in Delhi. He was also a founding member of the In¬dian Cooperative Union set up in 1948.”)

(b) Excerpts from Dharampal’s works that are rephrased and therefore not placed within quotation marks. Examples:

(i) “These schools were described as teaching a sophisticated curriculum, with daily school attendance by about 30% of children aged 6-15 years. Interestingly, the majority of students belonged to communities who were classed as Shudras or even lower. Further, in some areas, for instance in Kerala, Muslim girls were quite well represented.”

(ii) The British Origin of Cow-Slaughter in India (2002),[ii] besides providing historical evidence about the genesis of mass cow-slaughter under British auspices, presents extensive documentary material about one of the most significant resistance movements in India against kine-killing by the British during the years 1880-1894.[iii] By highlighting the participation of prominent Muslims in this mass protest as well as by emphasizing the crucial fact that it was the British, and not the Muslims, who were the main consumers of beef, Dharampal is able to dispel one of the deep-seated myths perpetuated to reinforce divisive colonial strategies.[iv]

(c) in respect of the list of published books. Example:

(i). 1. Dharampal, Panchayat Raj as the Basis of Indian Polity: An Exploration into the Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly (with a foreword by Jayaprakash Narayan), AVARD, New Delhi, 1962; reprinted in: Dharampal, Collected Writings, Other India Press: Mapusa 2000 (reissued 2003 & 2007), vol. IV, pp. 1-95; also in Dharampal Classics Series, ed. J.K. Bajaj and M.D. Srinivas, Vol. 1, Rashtrotthana Sahitya: Bengaluru and Centre for Policy Studies: Chennai, 2021. Translations into Gujarati and Hindi in Dharampal Samagra Lekhan (11 vols.), ed. Indumati Katdare, Punarutthan Trust, Ahmedabad 2005 and 2007, respectively. Jksuresh (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jksuresh, I have not read the additions made by AishwaryaSudheendra, but I have glanced at them; and at least some of this material looks worthwhile if it is not problematic in terms of copyright. (Immediately above, Justiyaya says that it is problematic.) The addition was most recently reverted by Njd-de, who commented "These additions still need reliable sources as references". Again, I haven't examined the sources, but I have glanced at the descriptions of some of them, and these look worthwhile. I'll assume for now that they were cited competently and honestly (that they indeed say what they are represented as saying). A very obvious problem is that the [technical] method by which they are cited is hard to use and avoided in English-language Wikipedia. To explain by example: What an editor intended to be the fifth reference was indexed with ^[5]. This resulted in a superscripted "[5]" but no link from it: the reader had to guess that it would be explained below, scroll down to see it, and then scroll up again. There are various approved ways to add references, but one that's commonly used and fairly easy to understand is exemplified by <ref>Dharampal, ''Civil Disobedience in Indian Tradition: With Some Early Nineteenth Century Documents'' (Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, 1971), p.37.</ref>. What comes between "<ref>" and "</ref>" is automatically turned into a reference, numbered, and positioned. (Any renumbering that later is required is also executed automatically.) ¶ As for the image, this edit says that it was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a "Copyright violation". NB deletion as a "Copyright violation" is not something that only happens to clear violations of copyright; it also happens to material that seems likely to violate copyright. I don't know how the image was described when it was uploaded, but it must be absolutely clear that there is no copyright impediment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding for me Hoary, I'm now genuinely unsure if the edits count as copyvio. here it shows 93.4% similarity, but it is possible that the tool got it wrong somehow. Jksuresh, if there are no copy right issues with the text, there is still major manual of style of issues, I would suggest (again if you're sure there is no copyvio issues) adding more citations, cleaning up the text in general, then republishing the edit. Justiyaya 11:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am amazed at the speed and clarity of response, for which I am very thankful. I will indeed run over the text with a fine toothcomb, ensure that the style issues and IP concerns (if any) are adequately addressed, and then perhaps get back to the business of submitting it again for publication, perhaps after a few days. Thanks once again, Dr. JK Suresh. Jksuresh (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Justiyaya, after all the discussion of July 3rd, 2021, which established the fact that there were no Copyright violations because the tool threw up common phrases, titles, authors and descriptions as infractions, it was decided that I would not face any impediments in making some stylistic changes and publishing them as the new Wiki Entry. However, I find that the changes have been reversed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan. What can I do about this? Can you please let me know? Jksuresh (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr Hoary, after all this discussion which brought out the fact that there were no Copyright violations because the tool threw up common phrases, titles, authors and descriptions as infractions, it was decided on 3rd July that I would not face any impediments in making some stylistic changes and publishing them as the new Wiki Entry. However, I find that the changes have been reversed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan. What can I do about this? Can you please let me know? Jksuresh (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Please delete this file: File:Jeannette Charles.jpg, as it is against Wikipedia's non-free media policy. Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Explicit, it looks like. — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with biography article

What should I improve in this article, I thought I found enough information and link to prove it's legitimate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oleksii_Levchenko  Anna Bedlam (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Bedlam, we read at the start that he's "Ukrainian actor, blogger, radio and television host". How is he in any way remarkable as an actor, as a blogger, or as a radio or television host? (The article doesn't appear to say.) Where is the in-depth coverage, in reliable, independent, published sources? (Incidentally, does he prefer the Ukrainian form of his name or the Russian form? It looks as if you've provided the former in Roman script and the latter in Cyrillic script, although I may well be making a mistake.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a much stricter condition than "legitimate"—we only host articles on notable topics, a jargon word for depth and substance of coverage in reliable independent sources. Find as many sources as you can about the person. Make sure that the article conveys why this person is more important than the majority of actors, bloggers or presenters, who are not notable. What awards have they won? What have newspapers written about them? Did they found a successful enterprise or invent a specialist technique or style that has caught on? — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Does my draft follow WP:NPOV?

If yes, can someone please approve my draft? And if no, please tell me the errors. Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, you have (or someone has) submitted it. The template at the top tells you "Review waiting, please be patient." So please be patient. As for "NPOV", I notice "prestigious Fifth Avenue" and "emblematic store": these are examples of what is what's called peacock prose hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have removed such terms from the draft as said above. Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: please do not edit your posts when somebody has already responded to them. Your first post above said "can someone please submit", and after Hoary's response you changed it to "can someone please approve". Since you have submitted the draft, it is currently waiting for review. NPOV is still an issue, and even more of an issue is the fact that parts of is are impossible to understand. Did you use a machine translation when you translated ? Never add machine translated text to Wikipedia unless you then revise the text very thoroughly. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tati is selling bazaars? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As per the mistakes pointed out by users Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Bonadea and Hoary, I have revised my article and edited all that content I feel was difficult to understand or wasn't cited properly. I am still a bit anxious if it has mistakes. (I'll take care of the point that I don't edit my posts when somebody has already responded to them.) Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that Teahouse hosts are not necessarily AfC reviewers. I agree the English is still awkward in parts, and needs work, while waiting for a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting also that we have only a handful of active AfC reviewers and many thousands of drafts pending review (with several hundred added to the pile each day), so a lack of response is generally nothing to do with you or your draft. It's just that we're very overwhelmed as reviewing is a very difficult task that brings you much negative feedback and little reward. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of edits regarding hydroxytyrosol

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

---

I would like to discuss and understand why the content of the Hydroxytyrosol page is being controlled by a single editor and why very conservative edits are being continually deleted. I do not understand why material which is judged to be factually correct and subjected to peer review in high quality journals is being rejected. I do not understand why material which is relied upon by medical professionals in online drug databases is considered 'speculative nonsense' and being removed. I do not understand why material published by the National Cancer Institute within the US National Institute of Health is questioned by a Wikipedia editor and then removed without even providing any comments. The approach is offensive and has resulted in there being very limited infomation on this compound in Wikipedia.

I have tried to make improvements in good faith, without ever having any commercial agenda. I find it disheartening that I am being accused of having such an agenda. If you care to search my edits of that page, you will find that I have not made any such edits. I have never tried to add anything of a commercial nature. There seems to be a policy of alienating people that try and be helpful, rather than cooperating to produce a high quality page which is useful to the general public. Jbtuk (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Jbtuk (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jbtuk, this is a content dispute. The right place for such discussions is the talk page of the article. I see that Zefr has opened a discussion there, and you haven't responded. Maproom (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you have added was rightfully reverted as not complying with WP:MEDRS, which has been explained to you. I see that extensive explanations for Zefr's actions were made at User talk:Jbtuk, including more than one warning, all of which you have deleted. As Maproom wrote, the proper place for a discussion on the article is the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, that Jbtuk and User talk:WackerHBT2 (who has only been editing the article in question) have both been asked to reply to a query about conflict of interest. J deleted the query from own Talk and W has so far ignored it, while both have been adding disputed content to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I started by posting reasonable requests to that persons page directly and I got no response. He then posted messages to my page that he was going to 'report' me. There seems to be a complete bias in your approach. You are happy to ignore the comments that I make to him, but you then say that he has reported me. I am really confused when somebody who adds genuine content in good faith is 'reported'. Perhaps that is why the page is so bad. Many people have tried to add content, but they are upset by being 'reported'. Your approach is against the very principles that I thought Wikipedia stood for. Your approach drives away contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbtuk (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by definition a trailing indicator of scientific accomplishments. Your desire to add descriptions of ongoing research, or any results from what Wikipedia considers premature research - including in vitro research, animal research, and the results from individual clinical trials - does not conform with Wikipedia policy. Many academic researchers who are used to the idea that all research results have value are disappointed to learn that Wikipedia has chosen to be consistently conservative as to what it allows as content. You also made a not very veiled threat on Zefr's Talk page, which Z moved to your Talk page (and you deleted): "If necessary, we will be asking authoratitave presentations to mentioned the disinformation on Wikipedia, which has been provided by non-experts such as yourself and to discredit it." Hence being 'reported'. Persist down this path and the consequence can be being indefinitely blocked from editing specific articles, or from all editing. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no understanding of what this 'conflict of interest' stuff you've posted is about, nor do I have any idea of what a 'Talk' page. To be honest, the whole exercise has been an unpleasant one and I have decided to abandon making any more contributions to Wikipedia. It is just too much effort and then you get accused of doing things. Please mention ONE commercial post that I made and explain to me why content from the best cancer research institutions in the world are rejected. This is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbtuk (talk • contribs)

I will use small words: If you are a researcher who has conducted scientific research on hydroxytyrosol and you want to edit the article Hydroxytyrosol, that is a conflict of interest. A simple statement to that effect should be placed on your User page. WP:COI provides a form, but its use is not required. This applies even if you do not intend to cite your own journal articles. A conflict of interest does not require a financial involvement such as with a dietary supplement company that markets hydroxytyrosol. As a PhD nutritional biochemist with a career in industry (now retired), I had myself made COI statements as needed. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Linking copyrighted materials on Internet Archive

Recently, I had nominated Mariner 1 for G.A. and the reviewer recommended changing several of the citations to include links to copyrighted materials on the Internet Archive (and, indeed, commercially available material). I have trouble with this practice as IA is rather liberal with what it puts online, and though they are great organization (to whom I've donated quite a lot), I have trouble endorsing their abuse of Fair Use.

Has there been any consensus on this? --Neopeius (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Neopeius, I don't know of any discussions on this, but that's not to say there haven't been any. I think this is a topic where reasonable minds can differ, and I certainly don't think it should hold up a GA. I would note that I did a quick check of the Aviation Week 1962-02-05 source for a copyright notice, and I didn't immediately see one. If they weren't printing copyright notices in that magazine, it is legitimately public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CalliopeJen! :) There is a copyright notice on page5. That alone does not guarantee copyright for items published before 1964 unless copyright was renewed, which the LoC suggests it was. In any event, best to err on the side of caution. --Neopeius (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References without links

Is it permissible to include a citation without a link? I have a reference I want to include but cannot find an online version of the article to link it to.

ProfessorKaiFlai ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is, ProfessorKaiFlai. References do not have to be available online as long as they have been reliably published; and even if they are available online, a URL is often a convenience, not an essential part of the reference. See WP:CITE. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Good news, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorKaiFlai (talk • contribs)

Can't find essay

I'm looking for an essay on not using in the world in articles, but can't find it. ―Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess it could be seen as WP:FLOWERY in some contexts. It's not uncommon: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I believe it was by EEng, and I think one example contains eagle scouts? ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks, that was it! ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Logos

The Lahore museum page is using an image of this logo. I want to upload several museum logos but what resolution should the image be at for it to be considered fair use? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

JSeb05, go ahead and upload (non-free file, This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use etc). A bot will come by and fix unacceptable resolution, example: [2]. Note though that the articles for which the logo is intended must be in mainspace already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

JSeb05, See WP:Image resolution "At the low pixel count end of the range, most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels),..." S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question from a new editor

Hi I am a new editor and I am a little confused as to the procedures for editing. Specifically, how and when to use talk pages. Also I was wondering if I need to know coding to edit on here because I'm really confused at all the requirements and things that seem like coding to me. And sorry one last thing, am I supposed to create my own user page or something?  PurpleIsTheBestColour (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@PurpleIsTheBestColour: Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your questions:

• Talk pages for articles are used to discuss how to improve the article and address any issues that get in the way of doing so. They are not places to discuss the subject generally.
• Articles can be edited with the visual editor, but keep in mind that it doesn't work on every page here; learning how to use wikitext will be beneficial for you.
• You are not obligated to create your own user page; if you're thinking about making one, give this page a to learn more. Some long-time users don't create one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PurpleIsTheBestColour, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your question about Talk pages: if you want to make a change that you think is going to be uncontroversial (eg correcting a spelling mistake (but be aware of WP:ENGVAR) or an obvious error, adding well-sourced information, or adding a missing source) you can go ahead and edit the article without discussing it on the Talk page. But if you think your change may be controversial, it's a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page first. If you do make an edit and somebody disagrees with it, they will usually revert your edit, and you can then open a discussion with them: see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk)

Every editor has their own Talk page. This is for making article-related comments to that person. You are within your rights to delete content from your own Talk page, but do not edit and leave up what other people have posted, nor change your content if someone has subsequently posted. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating references can by difficult for beginners. I recommend WP:Referencing for beginners, and practicing in your own Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about coding. There are all sorts of bits of mark-up text that appear in articles, but a lot of help is available. One of the most commonly found, most important, and most useful bits of code-like mark-up, is the material found between <ref> tags. But you don't have to write this yourself! At the top of the editor, you will see a line of tools including, at the right-side, "Cite". Make sure this is selected, and then on the second line, at the left side, you will see "Templates". You can click on this, and choose whether your source is a book, a web-page etc., and a window will pop up in which you can enter as much information as you can, and the system will write the proper reference "code" for you. There's a preview button so you can check it looks sensible. For other templates (things in curly brackets) I find it can be helpful to look for an example as used in another article, and copy it, modifying the details as necessary. (In any case, if you're making larger edits, or contemplating writing a new article, it's a really good idea to find a good-quality article on a similar topic, to use as a general guide. It will show you the sorts of sections that should be included, and how the whole thing should be formatted. If you don't get it all right, don't panic. Quite often a bot or a friendly, experienced editor will add bits that ought to have been there, or correct minor mess-ups. The main thing is to make sure your basic text is good, and backed up with reliable references). Elemimele (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavery image wrongly titled

This image: with the text: "Adalbert of Prague accuses Jews of the Christian slave trade against Boleslaus II" is wrong as it is actually this: "St Adalbert of Prague pleads with Boleslaus II for the release of Christian slaves, Gniezno Cathedral door".

Please change the text below this image from the article as it is wrong, biased, and misleading. רונן סיגן (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@רונן סיגן: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to discuss that over at Talk:Slavery with interested editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References

How can I publish in the main namespace an entry that is both in my Sandbox and in Draft?

After creating the Gianfranco Continenza entry in my User:Max Peltuinum/sandbox, as suggested to me, I moved it to Draft:Gianfranco Continenza. Since I think it is a good entry, how can I go about publishing it on the main namespace? Should I move the Sandbox or the Draft? Thank you.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems Draft:Gianfranco Continenza is waiting for a review. I suggest working on something else until a reviewer gets to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thanks for answering me. But I noticed that the counter in the Draft, since March 2021, continues to warn me that it will take 5 months or more because there are (still today) 4,151 submissions, even if about 4 months have already passed! I don't want to shorten the time, but I don't think it's right to have to wait indefinitely.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you say you "moved it to" draft, but you didn't, you copied it to draft. So there are now two rival versions of it. Having two versions of the same draft can lead to confusion – of anyone who wants to help improve it, of a reviewer, even of yourself. I would encourage you to delete, or at least blank, the version in your user space. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Perfect. Thank you! I thought I had done the "move" operation correctly. I cleared the sandbox. Can I do something to publish the Draft in the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, in answer to your last question: I am not surprised that the draft has remained unreviewed for four months. and can advise you on how to make a review more likely. This is not "official" advice, it is based on my understanding of how things work.

Reviewing drafts is done by volunteer editors. It is a dull and thankless task. I would not be willing to do it myself; but I have great respect for those who do help Wikipedia in this way.

Imagine yourself in the position of a reviewer. The main issue with almost all submissions is whether the subject is notable; so she will need to check that there are several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject.

• She finds a submission with no references. That's a quick fail.
• A submission with ten references. She starts checking them. Four of the first five are to sources which help to establish notability. Unless there's something else seriously wrong, that's an accept.
• A submission with five references. Only one of them helps to establish notability. That's a fail.
• A submission with 100 references. Four of the first six help with notability. That's an accept.
• A submission with 72 references. Some of the sources are inaccessible to her, of the first six that she can check, most are mere listings with no discussion and one is based on an interview with the subject and so not independent. She could wade through the rest of the references looking for evidence of notability; but she's not an automaton, she's a human being, and most likely she throws the submission back in the waiting list and finds a more productive use of her time.

You could encourage a faster review of your draft by making it easier for a reviewer to find the sources that establish notability (if there are any in there). You could do this by removing most or all of the references which have no discussion, or are not independent, or are to unreliable sources. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Thanks so much for the tip. I think I have deleted all the references that the "checklinks utility" reported in blue (connection issue). No dead, suspicious, status or warn results. Can I move the draft to the main namespace? Anyone who wishes can contribute on the main namespace. I don't understand why the entry, of good quality, has to remain in draft to be revised almost exclusively by bots (I don't see many humans in the revision history). I fully understand that proofreading is long and tedious, which is why anyone can contribute anywhere, not just on drafts.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you've removed 6 references, and retained 66. That will have very little effect. If you actually have some good sources, and are serious about wanting the draft to be reviewed soon, I suggest you remove another 60. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:First of all, thanks for reporting. I had entered all those references because this was suggested to me by the helpdesk on March 12, 2021 when I asked for help before moving the sandbox to the draft (I had actually only copied, thinking instead of having moved it). Then I even added others because there was a reviewer who did not find in the sources the confirmation of an assertion (but, in reality, the sources I cited already confirmed the assertion). I have now deleted half of the references. I am afraid to delete them all because there may be a reviewer who again disputes the absence of sources on some specific assertion. Anyone who deems it appropriate will be able to clean up, but I dare not undress my entry for the above reasons. Do you think that's enough to move the entry to the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you have a very common misunderstanding. A reviewer has told you the sources aren't good enough to establish notability; and instead of finding better sources, (maybe because you can't find any, maybe because the reviewer's report was poorly worded) you have found many more sources of even lower quality that the ones you started with. To get your draft into an acceptable state, you will need to find several (four will be enough) reliable independent published sources, in Italian if necessary, with in-depth discussion of the subject. Can you find four such sources? Maproom (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Thank you so much for your help. However, I note that not many living Italian guitarists are mentioned in at least 4 books, in various specialist journals with national and international circulation, and in the newspapers of various Italian regions. Even fewer among them are those of the jazz/fusion area that are known in Italy, Germany, Albania, Slovenia and the USA. As for references, before creating the draft I asked the Helpdesk for advice, and I was suggested to include references for each statement: that's why I entered so many. The reviewer who pointed out to me the absence of references regarding the Tower Records ranking had not noticed that in reality they were already present and were also of unequivocal quality (national and international magazines, newspapers and specialized websites). In any case, for greater confirmation of the assertion, I had added other sources without deleting the previous ones because it is not true that they do not confirm the assertion, and it is not true that they are not qualitatively suitable. For reasons that obviously I cannot know, the Tower.com website does not keep an archive of the rankings of its 2008 (or other years) sales, but on the other hand no record company website where records are sold has a similar archive. This kind of information can only be found "de relato", that is “through an indirect testimony”: in the present case it is constituted by an avalanche of articles that have appeared in specialized journals. As for the quality of the sources I have cited, I do not agree with your opinion: the ones I have kept are all of an excellent level, independent and authoritative, and can be consulted in any good library as well as (when they are not exclusively paper) on the Internet. I fully understand that over 70 references (suggested by the Helpdesk) may discourage many willing, but the 35 I have kept are necessary to attest to the encyclopedicity of the voice. On the other hand, reviewers should check if the biographical musician meets "at least one" of the criteria listed by Wikipedia (specifically, it meets 7!), If the entry does not violate the Wikipedia pillars and is sufficiently referenced, but not it seems to me that they are required to replace the community by preventing the publication of an entry that complies with the rules, judging independently whether a reference is authoritative or not: moreover, anyone can delete the references deemed redundant, or add new ones if lacking. All that clear, can I move the draft to the main namespace so anyone can contribute to it? Thanks for your invaluable help.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, the draft only reaches the standard Wikipedia requires of an article if it cites several reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I have only checked a few of the sources, and none of those qualified (for instance, the first one I have access to has no discussion at all. I asked you above if you could find four acceptable sources; and you haven't responded. Maproom (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

.

@Maproom:First of all, the sources must not be detached from the sentence they refer to, as you did, otherwise they mean nothing. What you have taken into consideration is a "yearbook of music", that is of musicians, music conservatories, theaters, etc. (it is a very important publication in Italy) and certifies that Gianfranco Continenza founded the CMA: you can find it written to page 71 of the pdf. This is the purpose of this source. Secondly, I am not aware that national or international magazines need to be attached because anyone who wishes could consult them in any library (these are "serious" sources). In any case, even if I am not entirely convinced that it is ontologically correct according to the Wikipedia criteria, for the sole purpose of responding to your exhortation, in some references I have included the url to the respective pdf (if I wanted I could do it for all references, but I don't think it's necessary at all). Check the nos. 2, 5, 10, 17, 19, 20, 31 and 35.Thank you!--Max Peltuinum (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question About Sources Being Misrepresented

On the "Economy of China" article, I noticed one of the underlying sources on state-owned enterprises is being seriously misrepresented in the article's contents. I haven't done any real editing before so I don't just want to go ahead and make the change, so I'd rather bring it up and discuss the inaccuracy within the article's Talk page first but I'm not 100% sure what the M.O. would be. I'm not experienced with Wikipedia's standard operating procedures and discussing potential edits, so I thought I'd ask here first.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China Quote: "State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization in 2019[29]" TyleriusMaximus (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@TyleriusMaximus: Posting your question on the article's talk page is a reasonable course of action. You could quote the Wikipedia article, quote the reference, and point out any discrepancies. You could also suggest an alternative wording for the Wikipedia article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Searchbar

Did someone change something to the search bar on Wikipedia? Results are not showing up as well as before. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Could you explain what you're experiencing or what has changed in a little more detail please? Meanwhile, I had a recent discussion with another user on this topic, and so I will return with a link to it shortly. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Back again: Please have a read of this recently archived discussion to see if there might be anything relevant in it to what you're experiencing. Other than that, I'm not aware of any significant changes to the Search facility. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically, sometimes I don't get drop-down options in the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, but only for certain things. I'm on macbook right now. Perhaps the issue has something to do with my common.js, but I have only noticed a problem since a few days. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphan tag

I have taken care of the orphan page. could the tag be removed now please? LSwiki092018 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) LSwiki092018 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

LSwiki092018,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange coincidence or not?

I've noticed that the items in the 'Did you know...' section of today's Main_Page - Friday 3 July, UK edition - all have a strong connection to Israel and/or Jewish culture.

They are:

- an elephant in Israel conceived through artificial insemination
- a Jewish cantor saved from a Nazi firing squad
- a street in Jerusalem
- a nurse at a hospital in Jerusalem
- a band that plays rock and bluegrass with Jewish lyrics
- the actor Topol who played in 'The Fiddler on the Roof'
- a verse from Psalm 85
- an Israeli midwife known as Bambi

Is there any specific reason for this or is it simply an almost incredible coincidence? 85.210.138.34 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there 85.210, no this isn't a coincidence. In memory of one of the most prolific, if not the most prolific, contributors ever to WP:Did you know's passing in March, Yoninah, all hooks today are related to Jewish culture. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Thanks for the clarification, Berrely.

It's also English edition, not UK edition. en.wp does not have separate editions for America, Canada, England, India, Australia, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information, Jéské Couriano.

To and?

In this bit acting as both a sequel to and spin-off from the series should there be a comma after the to? Govvy (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy hi! WP:RDL takes these kinds of questions, FYI. Teahouse is more "please respect ENGVAR when editing Wikipedia" kind of place. IMOHO as a non-native, because there are only two items, there shouldn't be any commas there even if you were using oxford commas. That said, I am not even sure whether these are just items or clauses. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Without further context, a comma isn't needed as it's a two-item list (and it's one clause). I presume the confusion comes from the prepositions attached to the nouns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Though a comma after to is not necessary, if you did decide to include one, a comma after from would be needed as well. Deor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about an infinitive attached to a verb, but my English is not the best. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason it reads peculiarly and feels as though it might need a comma is because after 'to' the reader expects immediately to find what it's a sequel to. So you feel you need a comma to simulate the pause that someone would make in reading the sentence aloud. But in this case you could perhaps circumvent the problem by writing ... acting as both a sequel to the series, and a spin-off. If you don't feel happy leaving the spin-off like that, you could end ..., and a spin-off from it. but I don't think that's strictly necessary. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Before I put this in article space.

Before I put this in article space I've been working very hard on a new article about maid abuse. Soon, I am going to put it in article space. Before I do, however, I'd love a bit of feedback on it so I may improve it more. It's here in my sandbox. Helen (let’s talk) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks nice Machinexa (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: Presuming references 1 & 7 are two websites pointing to the same article, I suggest you combine them with all the info about the journal. References 5 & 8 are bare URLs - you can add citation templates. References 9 & 11 have incorrect |last=|first= values. You could also wikilink each organization mentioned in your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: Yes, it's not bad at all. I suggest emphasising in the lead the geographic prevalence of this issue, and subsequently remove and move over some of the preponderance of fine detail from the Singapore section of Domestic worker. I felt there was also a bit too much listing of the multiple ways one can beat, chastise, torment or abuse a domestic worker. Other than that: good work.Nick Moyes (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, you refer to the "Human Trafficking Hotline", but you don't make it clear what country or countries this hotline operates in. Likewise "the country’s Employment Act": what country? Maproom (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Maproom I just looked it up, and it is the United States hotline. I just put that part in. Thank you very much for helping me. Helen (let’s talk) 21:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Userpage appearing as Wikipedia article?

I think that userpages are not supposed to look like articles in Wikipedia (per WP:FAKEARTICLE). In looking for author-links today I came across this page [3] which looks like it would be an article on Lynn B. Wilson. Is there a process to notify the user about potential issues with their page? DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I wouldn't call that a "fake article"; it looks like an infobox on themself and a bunch of references to copy-paste into whatever they're working on. It's basically just like any other user page that has information about the user itself, just formatted weirdly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the rapid response.--DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I got declined. Can you help

 Courtesy link: Draft:Evans Appiah

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Fiifiblack (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fiifiblack, I see you have made a common mistake for many new editors on Wikipedia and tried to jump right into article creation with an autobiogrpahy. Wikipedia is not social media and we do not accept articles about just anyone. We try to only allow articles which have shown through reliable sources that other have noticed and decided to write in depth about the subject. If there are not in depth published sources about the subject then the subject is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Currently your draft looks more like a CV then an encyclopedia article and probably does not meet the inclusion criteria.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no information that suggests he meets Wikipedia's idea of notability, thus not justifying an article. I suggest you stop working on this, and instead post a tag at the top asking for an Administer to delete it. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Blatant inaccuracies on Dick Ellis

I have edited the Dick Ellis page as it is factually way off and it is important as this man may have been one of the first, if not the first Soviet spies, but the authorship of a book attributed, correctly, to Konni Zilliacus (on another page) is attributed to be written by Ellis as the reference to the proof, unspecified, by 'James Cotton,‘”The Standard Work in English on the League” and Its Authorship'.'

The trouble is I checked and the publishers records show Zilliacus got the royalties - and he was translating for the Soviets at the time.

He also did not learn Russian at St Edmunds Hall and the Sorbonne as their records show the contrary. He married his Russian wife Elisabet Zilenski in Constantinople in 1923 and he had been there for sometime. He barely dropped his bags off at St. Edmunds Hall - their records show he went to Constantinople almost straight away. They have no record of him at the Sorbonne.

Basically it would seem highly probable Ellis was a Soviet spy long before Philby and this is not stressed. It is quite important.

Previous corrections were removed without explanation. Wikihgd (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You were told in the revert's edit summary to take it to Talk:Dick Ellis. I suggest you do that and talk it out instead of coming here, because the Teahouse regulars here are going to tell you the exact same thing ParticipantObserver and I have. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikihgd First, remember to log in to your account, as it appears you edited Dick Ellis via your account and then again not logged in, appearing as an IP number. Second, discussions of articles go on the Talk pages of the articles not in the article (as you did). Third, you added content without providing a reference at the same time. Information may be true, but unless it can be verified via a reference, it will be reverted. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Proper procedure

1) Is it proper for a fellow editor to move another editor's mainspace articles to draftspace or to make a page a redirect instead of a full-status article without first nominating the article for deletion or redirect, adding a template to the article, or having any public forum whatsoever?

2) What should one do if they are accused of being paid to edit, when indeed they are a volunteer? Shari Garland (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

1 ) Yes. In fact, draftification is seen as preferable to starting an AfD, if the article has potential or the intent is to quarantine mercenary efforts. 2 ) I would take a very hard look at your edits and ask yourself why people would think you're a mercenary. What may not seem obvious to you is clear as night and day to us, especially as involves promotion and apparent conflict-of-interest editing. But even night and day can be wrong. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

2 ) Point out that your User page and contributions history show that you have created MANY articles successfully, without an suspicion of Paid or COI, and that it was just a coincidence you created the subsequently draftified Draft: Steve Pilot when it also offered for pay. And then nominate the draft for deletion, because it is clear that SP does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article about a live person. David notMD (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to add links to support groups re: a syndrome?

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia (evidently). I created the following Wikipedia page for a condition called slipping rib syndrome. I am trying to build upon it with as much knowledge and information re: slipping rib syndrome as I possibly can, so others who possibly have the condition can get all the information they need. I figured, it may also be beneficial for those who may have the condition to add additional resources as to where they can get support, which there is a reddit and a facebook page dedicated to this condition. When I added these in, I received a big red notice stating Facebook isn't a reliable resource. Would adding these links as I did to the page still be appropriate on Wikipedia? Also, any insight/advice regarding the article and what I have done so far is appreciated. Thank you all! Jebbles (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jebbles and welcome to the Teahouse! Draft:Slipping_Rib_Syndrome#Additional_Resources is what's usually (not always) under "External links" here. Content like this has it's own guideline, WP:EL. On the face of it, this seems to be WP:USERG opinions/comments by interested netizens, and IMO that's not good enough for inclusion. WP:EL mentions "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material" and while it's possible your links have that, it seems a clear risk that they don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for replying! I'm hoping this ping works. So inputting the subreddit and facebook group for external links would not be appropriate in a wikipedia article? Would the same apply to a forum about slipping rib syndrome? I also want to clarify for other comments: the subreddit/facebook is NOT being used for reference. The article was also declined because it has too many empty sections and because of incorrect style (I thought I had 5 months of wait!), I'm reading the MOS page but it is overwhelming as I am new to everything here on Wikipedia. If I would like help/assistance editing the article before I resubmit with more information, would this talkspace area be the spot where I can ask on people to help edit it to make sure it is the correct style? Thank you again. :) Jebbles (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jebbles:. You might like to read WP:MEDRS, which explains why Wikipedia insists on higher standards of sourcing for articles related to medicine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jebbles: I suspect that the subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article. But you'll need better sourcing to establish this. (A link to a Reddit page would probably not be acceptable in any article; certainly not a medical one.) Maproom (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I still perform edits, I did previously if the article was suddenly protected under WP:ARBBLP?

Recently, one of the article in my Special:Watchlist has its protection changed from pp-vandalism to pp-blp and linked with WP:ARBBLP, the protection after a year. However, I have been editing on Wikipedia for couple of years and not seen this protection before, at least on article within my watchlist. Hence, I would like to know if I can continue to edit the article as usual while following the various guidelines? I almost edit the infobox (mostly cleaning the syntax and correcting, mostly untouched if everything is in order), career section (if there is new activites, in which add it as prose), discography (adding new songs/albums, adding/editing the chart ranking or adding missing source), filmography (adding new shows or correcting the styling or adding missing source), and awards and nominations (adding new nominated or won awards with reliable source or correcting the styling or adding missing source). Fyi, I'm not involved in the WP:ARBBLP nor was it added due to my activities, checking the history log, it was likely changed to IP violating BLP policies. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I don't know which article you're talking about, so I don't know the context. However, I'm pretty certain that you don't have to worry about it, and you can treat it as any semi-protected article (unless it's fully protected) and carry on editing like you usually do. As long as you are constructively editing the article, the page protections aren't about you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Hi, thanks you for the reply, no worries I have been constructively editing the article just curious about such changes as I never seen it before. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: The only possible protection levels are at WP:PP. It looks like the only difference is the reason for protection, which is from vandalism to BLP violations. I have no context, so I can't tell you specifically why, but the reason for page protection shouldn't have any effect on you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Noted, thanks you. This is the article in question, in case you needed it (apologies for not linking it earlier). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: If you look at the logs for that page, it says that the last protection expired on June 8. A lot of BLP violations happened after that date, and it was re-protected. It's at the semi-protection level, btw. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Ah I see ... noted, thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg

For starters, it's pretty acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landsmannschaft_Zaringia_Heidelberg Could you remove the word "draft" please. Wname1 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether Draft:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg meets en:Wikipedia's standard of notability, as I don't have access to any of the sources cited (and I know very little German). But the translation needs some work. E.g. "Fuchsband", "Vandal-Band", "couleur", "percussion", "rippon", "Bursche", "beat", "Mensur", "hit", "Diemerei". "Mensur" and "percussion" are wikilinked, but apparently to different senses of those words. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is your third attempt to create an article, and the other two, while accepted, still have tags indicating quality problems, I recommend you submit this draft to AfC and see what a reviewer thinks. Because of backlog of drafts, could be months before reviewed. Work on improving the draft. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible on Wikipedia to use a short Mensur video even though you don't know who made the Mensur video? Wname1 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be copyright infringement. And, do not bold comments. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the current article acceptable? Wname1 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 I am not a reviewer. The next step is to submit the draft. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. It is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before it is reviewed. If Declined, the reviewer will provide reasons why. Fix those, then submit again. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In comparison, these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsmannschaft_Schottland and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_Saxo-Borussia_Heidelberg were probably simply accepted quickly. Although the Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg already looks sufficient for the start in the comparison of the 2 other articles. Wname1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the article Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg now acceptable for removal from the Draft: Now? Wname1 (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 The draft has been submitted to Articles for Creation, for review by a Reviewer. I strongly recommend letting this process go forward. Given backlog, it can be days, weeks or (sadly) months for a review (the system is not a queue). Do not remove Comments. If Declined, do not remove the Declined notice before resubmitting. You have an option of by-passing AfC and converting this to an article directly. I recommend against this choice. All such are reviewed by New Pages Patrol, a separate group of reviewers. Their options are accept, return to draft, nominate for deletion (AfD) and Speedy Deletion. Lastly, the fact that other stuff exists does not guarantee acceptance. Among the millions of articles, there are tens of thousands that do not meet current standards. The examples you gave were created years ago, without having gone through AfC. That said, I believe Zaringia is notable, but the draft needs more work. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the used terms are explained under Couleur. "Perkussion" is a metal thread woven into the sides of the ribbon/band. Kallewirsch (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I had replaced "percussion" with "mantling" on a guess. Should be fixed. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Upper band with perkussion in silver

I think that doesn´t hit the point. I placed a photo for example with two ribbons. The upper one has silver perkussion and is worn by normal members (Bursche), the lower one is without and worn by newbies (Fuchs).Kallewirsch (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Perkussion" is not defined in the Couleur article. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats why I explained it here. In the german version of the couleur article there is some more information. Not too long to use it for mechanical translation. Kallewirsch (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

See if perkussion now used correctly in article. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good. The perkussion is the reason for the small stripes shown on images of the colours, have a look at this list. Most of these terms are rarely used outside the community or if, with a different meaning. Maybe a glossary or a list of these as an article at WP would be helpful. Kallewirsch (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to show a video from year 1913 on Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg page. This is a Sabre Mensur between Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg and Cheruskia. Do you know a video expert person on wikipedia? I tried it on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard, unfortunately it doesn't work. Thanks, Wname1 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have 6 or 5 such different videos form year 1913

Mensur, 1913, Heidelberg, Zähringer

I accepted the draft. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the acceptance. Unfortunately, this user still exists: User: AntiCompositeBot / NoLicense on the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/. How can this be clarified? Sorry I made a mistake, now it's right. Wname1 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag

DGG What should I do to remove the AntiCompositeBot? Wname1 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Links to World Gazetteer don't work

Hi all, World Gazetteer is used as reference for city population sizes on pages like List of countries by largest and second largest cities, List of highest cities, List of cities in Ghana and many more. Links to World Gazetteer don't work and archived links on Wayback Machine don't work too, a message "Sorry, no offline reader allowed. You can use the download function." is returned. A message on Talk:List_of_countries_by_largest_and_second_largest_cities#World_Gazetteer_as_source indicates that the links don't work since at least 31 July 2019. Maybe www.citypopulation.de can be used as an alternative source, but it seems it contains less data. There are a lot of links to World Gazetteer, so I'm asking here how to proceed. Difool (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Difool. I believe the information you're looking for can be found here. A citation to a reliable source doesn't need to be available online in principle and it can still be cited as long as it's (1) considered reliable (2) used in proper context and (3) been published and is reasonably accessible. When a link to a cited source becomes "dead", it doesn't automatically lose it's value as a source; of course, it's great when everything cited in a Wikipedia article is available online, but that's not always the case. So, if you think the World Gazetteer has no value as a reliable source and you can replace it with a better source, then that probably would be OK to do; just leave an edit summary explaining why and perhaps follow up with something on the relevant article talk pages further clarifying things. However, you can also leave the citations as is, add a Template:Deadlink to them, and then add another supporting citation. If only one or two articles are going to be minimally impacted, then the first approach would probably be OK; however, if as you say WG is being cited in lots of articles, then it might be best to seek additional input at WP:RSN, a relevant WikiProject talk page or even maybe WP:RSX before going about and mass removing lots of citations from lots of different articles. There might be someone out there who's able to find archive versions of WG somewhere, even if they're behind some sort of WP:PAYWALL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to Sort an AFD after nomination?

Hi, Can anyone help me to teach how to sort an afd discussion if that is already marked for deletion? Is there any tool? Can we do this using Twinkle or page curation? for example i recently marked this page for afd but forgot to sorting. GermanKity (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity: There seem to be a couple at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Scripts_and_tools. However, I have not personally used any of them. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ganbaruby, Thank You for a good answer here. And i did it.GermanKity (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

G4 Speedy deletion mistake

Can you rewrite "Nina Aquila: Legal Eagle", because my page was deleted and they told me there's a G4 from the old one who previously deleted. I'm not reposting any page or something, I just making new and original pages. I was depressed like this. Fortunewriter (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't rewrite it, because it's already been deleted again, so we don't know what it said. Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Aquila:_Legal_Eagle shows that the topic isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi

There is so much vandalism going on by IP addresses at Rani of Jhansi. Please protect the article. Peter Ormond 💬 09:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you not edit WP:RPP? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@A little blue Bori: I don't know what level of protection is to be asked for. If you know, you can request there. Peter Ormond 💬 10:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's just IPs/new users causing the vandalism, then semi-protection or CRASHlock is called for, depending on how heavily edited the page is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Peter Ormond, I did it for you here, I requested temporary semi protection. I would suggest installing twinkle if you want to make more RPPs in the future. Justiyaya 10:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I now myself approve my drafts?

As of now, I have 9 drafts approved and for each of them the message in my talk page says Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. So can I approve my draft myself? Excellenc1 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your Talk page history, you have established a record of successfully creating drafts and getting those approved at AfC. If you feel that your quality is the same on your current drafts, then yes, you can move your drafts to main space without going through AfC. There will remain the possibility that when those get looked at by editors of the New Page Patrol, could be tagged for needing more references, reverted to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. For your specific example Draft:The Good Burger, I have doubts it qualifies for corporate notability. (WP:NCORP). Consider letting it go through AfC, to see what a reviewer thinks. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Help. I misspelled my Project Name and I don't know how to edit it.

I'm still pretty new so imagine my horror when I realized I misspelled my project name. How do I fix it? Thanks. --Tchula65 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The name of a draft is largely irrelevant; the reviewer, if they accept the draft (which would require you to submit it first), will move it to an un-typo'd title as part of that process. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Returnshp [sic]

That said, I don't think this would be accepted, as it's written less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a marketing pamphlet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I pared content down to just facts. This topic has been around since 2008 but not well utilized. The pandemic has given it a greater spotlight. --Tchula65 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Images missing

Hi, I have been editing my draft and when I clicked the preview button my images all disappeared??? Any idea why this could be? Also when i tried to insert them back into my draft it wouldnt allow it? I dont know what to do next :/ Thankyou in advance FlowerMoon593 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The images were removed by User:Theroadislong due to their questionable copyright status. See Wikipedia:Copyrights § Guidelines for images and other media files. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to added death age?

I was editing Harmoko, which he dies on 4 July 2021, but the age death on death date didn't appear. And how to added death age? Lkas123 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, to the Teahouse, Lkas123. You should use the {{Death date and age}} template. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I create wikipedia article for my client?

Can I create wikipedia article for my client? Hablus (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hablus and welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: You shouldn't. Wikipedia is not for promotion and someone paying you to create an article will usually not end well for you or your client. I will drop you a formalized template on your talk page that includes more details on this. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

delete draft in my sandbox

delete draft in my sandbox? I have a Sandbox article draft that I want to delete. How is that done? BrucePL (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi BrucePL, you should Request CSD per G7, by simply copying any one of these templates into the page you want to delete.

{{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}} -- Justiyaya 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I've once removed the COI tag from Renu Raj which was placed by GermanKity, see. Someone else also removed the COI tag before me, look. But German kitty is doing the same process (tagging undisclosed payment tag) again and again. This is vandalism, right? 27.59.238.4 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not vandalism if the user believes in good faith that the tag is correct- and if it is correct, the user with the COI should not remove it themselves until the article has been examined. If you believe that the tag is not needed, please start a discussion with them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any references in Renu Raj that show that she's notable. Some sources are just listings, or statements that she's been promoted; others are based on what she has said. We need independent discussion to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331dot and Maproom,Thank You for your comments here. I have strong feelings that ip address user (27.59.238.4) is the sock of User:Idhachu (creator of the article Renu Raj) who have already blocked as a sock. And i have doubt why this user is so keen to remove COI/UDP tag. I am also agreed with you Maproom, the subject is struggling for notability and the same must be discuss. GermanKity (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to posting this accusation here, IP 27.59.238.4 has posted a similar note on the Talk pages of more than one Administrator, accusing Germankity of vandalism. My thinking is that the IP should be warned. If persists, investigated for sock. Separately, I agree that the article does not establish notability for Renu Raj - basically a government bureaucrat - and should be AfD'd. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: @GermanKity: @David notMD: @27.59.238.4: the article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renu Raj. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi, Thankyou for inviting me to the Tea House, and thankyou to KylieTastic for reviewing my first submission. I am ofcourse totally new to this and not sure if I am using Wikipedia correctly but have a keen interest in contributing to Wikipedia! I am struggling with references. Especially where there might not be many to use...how do I get around this? Thankyou in advance!

FlowerMoon593 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The review and the Comment at Draft:Holy Coves, both by experienced editors, strongly suggest that there has not been enough written ABOUT the band to establish their notability. Documenting there existence and albums is not sufficient. If you cannot find published articles about the band, there is no "get around". David notMD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, FlowerMoon593, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability informative. More generally, I think it is unfortunate that so many new editors come here thinking that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating a new article. It is often not, and most new editors can add hundreds of times as much value to Wikipedia by addressing shortcomings in existing articles (especially lack of references) than by embarking on the difficult task of creating a new article before they have learnt what that takes. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to write about a company

please let me know how to write about a company 92.97.42.246 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do in Wikipedia. After you gain some experience in editing existing articles, try Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Category

Can anybody create Category:Sreenidhi Deccan FC? It is for a football club in India that turned fully professional. There is also need to create all of the Subcategories for this category. I'm not doing it because it seems complex for me to do. Hoping someone will help me. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony:  Done based on Category:Chennai City F.C. and its subcats. Please start populating the categories Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about template (idea?)

Good day. Is there a template where I can see my most recent contribution? I want to specifically put one on my user page. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 17:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: I don't know of a template, but you could put a link to your contribution history Special:Contributions/SsSsSølarRadia_-75. You could also propose it if you have more detailed thoughts of just how the edit would display. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: Possibly {{UserContribs2}}, but it is a little confusing to me. RudolfRed (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Probably not that but thanks for a suggestion. Close, but not really of what I was looking for. Here is what I got in mind as a template doesn't exist. A box, border thing that surrounds what is inside. The template would automatically show the user's most recent contribution in the template, with a link to that contribution. The words that make up the link would be the contribution's reason.

You can use {{Special:Contribs/SsSsSølarRadia -75|limit=25}} Zoozaz1 talk 02:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a very neat idea, Zoozaz1, that I've just experimented with on my own User Page. However, it generates the list as it was when the edit was saved and doesn't subsequently update when the page is visited after a subsequent edit elsewhere. Hence it doesn't quite do what SsSsSølarRadia -75 wanted: the behaviour would need to be more dynamic, like {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{formatnum:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}|R}}-0}}}} which gives the current number of articles (as 6,907,311) and will increment automatically. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it updated automatically; if you look at my sandbox it should include this edit. Zoozaz1 talk 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Amusingly, after reverting my own change to my user page, I looked at the OID for the version where the page includes that template[4]. In invoking the OID, one sees the current list of recent edits, not the list that was saved when the edit itself was made, so this type of template is actually able to mislead about what was on a page in the past! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1:. This is really weird! As you say, the template updates automatically when placed within your (or my sandbox) but the identical template placed on my User Page does not: it persists in the state when saved to the page. I thought that this might be something to do with browser caching but that seems not to be the case as the two versions are now different even after closing and re-opening my browser. On the other hand, invoking the OID (above) 'does the update and gives the latest version! Any thoughts? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That is bizarre. I really don't have a clue as to why that's happening. Zoozaz1 talk 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Further observation leads me to a possible answer: it takes some time for User Contributions to be updated on the various servers that the WMF use. Hence, while you can invoke the true current set using Special:Contributions for a given user, it takes a while (up to 20 minutes in my trials) for a given new edit to be reflected by using the template on another page. So, bottom line is that Zoozaz1's suggestion does indeed provide what SsSsSølarRadia -75 wanted, with a possible lag when implemented.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have implanted the template to my user page. Yes, the template is causing a delay for the most recent one, but it sure does work! | Also unrelated to this topic, but do you guys get notifications from my new messages? No one was responding by the hour from my previous. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please how can I publish this content

I paid a company to help me publish these profiles (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/anydos and https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/annastasia-onyinyechukwuka-oraegbunem) on Wikipedia but is over a year now and they could not help me. Please could you help me? Thank you in advance for responding. 99.245.38.118 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You should never pay a third party to get something published on Wikipedia. If the subjects are notable, they'll be eventually written about by interested editors. I'm afraid your money was spent in vain. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts (volunteers) advise, but are not article writers. My own opinion, looking at those two websites, neither is Wikipedia-worthy yet. See WP:TOOSOON David notMD (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism at Talk:Shem HaMephorash

I started a poll at Talk:Shem HaMephorash. So far the whole section has been removed twice by other editors. Notices to related projects link to that heading. What can I do about this talk page vandalism? Skyerise (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial removal of content in the history of that talk page, Skiyerise: what "vandalism" are you referring to? By the way, vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding page number to a source that is cited multiple times?

Apologies for any formatting issues! I recently added a page number for the [13] reference on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal. However, the source is cited twice in the article, so the page number I added is only applicable for the 13.1 citation and not the 13.0 one. What's the preferred way to go about this? StalkerFishy (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@StalkerFishy: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'd suggest removing the page number from the actual citation, and use {{rp}} to display the page numbers right after the citation. An example: —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful. I appreciate the help! StalkerFishy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

how does the teahouse function

how do i communicate with people ?? Auxcillia (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ask a question here, or make a request here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Date of Death unknown

What do I do if I can't find a date of death? Thanks. --Tchula65 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tchula65: If you can confirm the subject is dead but cannot find their date of death, categorize them under Category:Year of death unknown (if the subject has lived a long time ago and there is no reason to believe that such information exists) or Category:Year of death missing (if the subject died recently and thus information of their date of death should exist somewhere). If the year of date is know but not the exact date, use Category:Date of death missing. If you provide more details on the subject, we can maybe be of more assistance. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The details are, I have a list of children born to my subject and can only confirm the date of death for one of the three from family genealogy records. Their respective birth dates are 1885 and 1889 so it is practical to assume they are no longer living. Is this the detail you are requesting? Thank you. --2601:242:500:C18:4919:301E:7270:45C6 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@2601:242:500:C18:4919:301E:7270:45C6: we would indeed assume that anyone born before 1901 is deceased (so we can assume they would have to be at least 150 or so here!) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User Pages

Can I please have a general idea about what to put on user pages? Thanks! IFvoltronwasadragon... (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)IFvoltronwasadragon...

Hello, IFvoltronwasadragon... Your user page is to tell other editors about your interests, work and plans for improving the encyclopedia. You can find out more at Wikipedia:User pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hello, where can I find Wikigroups or projects related to sacred art? Like for my Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Timothy_Verdon Xavierwraith (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Xavierwraith, You can browse for the Projects from the WikiProjects. To See the Full list, see the Bambot List. Thank you!!!Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

GA problem

I was looking through GA nominees recently, and I accidently clicked on a page and signed up to review Mariner 1 when I didn't mean to. Is there any way to undo this action? I don't see a revert button... Kokopelli7309 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Kokopelli7309

@Kokopelli7309: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions § Step 2: Starting a review: "If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations talk page." Kleinpecan (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

James Shigeta Actor

AWARDS AND LEGACY

In 2007 he set up the James Shigeta scholarship for Asian studies with the university of Hawaii 2406:3003:2005:4235:9451:6544:8880:7327 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you have a suggestion for the James Shigeta article. You can post your suggestion on the article's talk page - Talk:James Shigeta - along with a WP:RS, and ask for assistance updating the article. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism

Hello Every Major Sports League Controversies and criticism so i think this needs to be added for the NFL

Controversies and criticism Main article: National Football League controversies

The NFL has been involved in a number of controversies over the years and has received a significant amount of criticism.[145] Kartigang038885 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Kartigang038885, Kindly let us know if you have any questions. The above info is just a Paragraph. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kartigang038885: National Football League controversies already exists as a separate article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kartigang038885: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that you would like a new section added to the National Football League called "Controversies and criticism". You can be bold and create it yourself, or you can make a suggestion on the article's talk page: Talk:National Football League. Be sure to provide a reliable source that can be used for reference #145. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this topic notable?

Can I create an article on the list of noble lords of Genlis (like this article on list of English monarchs)? The page is under work in my sandbox, you might take a look at it. It is a translation of a section of the French article on Genlis. Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, as a ferinstance, I read within your translation: Savoyen (Savoinus) de Janly: He is the brother of Jean and his name appears in the sales charter of the Loiche mill by his little cousin Ermengarde in 1235. What reason do we have to believe this; and really, why should anyone (beyond a tiny coterie of obsessives) care? (This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of genealogical trivia.) Can't you prune the merely trivial and boil down what remains and is verifiable to a length that would allow it to fit easily within Genlis, Côte-d'Or? -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Firstly, I'm not yet done with my article, so there will be many errors. And about this one, I kept it because I felt I cannot skip people out of a lineage. Now that you say I can either add on better information or just remove it, I'll do so. (Also, may I ask what "beyond a tiny coterie of obsessives" means?) Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

So I went to my sandbox to edit it as mentioned above. But I realised that majority of the people mentioned in the article have only lineage or such relation metioned as a note. For instance,

• Denise de Tenarre: She married Guillaume de Vichy, squire, Lord of Agencourt.
• Maurice I, Lord of Janly (Genley, Genleio): He was a witness in the act of foundation of the Abbey of Tart in 1132. He was the father of five sons: Hugh, Guy, Theodoric (Thierry), Ponce, and Solomon - and of a girl whose first name is not known. (This person is the second mentioned person of the first house, how do I even remove his name)

Also note that these lords/ladies are from the 11th century, so finding more information will be very difficult. Excellenc1 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, it's not necessary to demonstrate the notability of each small ingredient of an article. But from what we know about these people, they seem utterly unremarkable. (They had names, they married, they reproduced. Well, all your ancestors reproduced, and all mine did too. Most of mine were married, and all had names.) I suggest that you skip any mention of people who show no sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have removed names with content from my sandbox which do not appear to be notable. Not so perfect though, the content is edited to the requirement. (You might want to give a look at my sandbox). Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, we can disagree about what constitutes "notability". So let's put aside sane definitions of notability and concentrate on the Wikipedia use: more or less "written up in reliable sources". You write for example:

Hugues (or Huguenin) de Janly: He abandoned the name of Montmorot and instead used Janly. He was mentioned in 1297, with his mother, then a widow, during the act of the donation of Bouzeron to the canons of Saint-Léger. In 1325, Hugues, damoiseau, entered into a contract with the abbot of Saint-Étienne de Dijon, Ponce de Courbeton, to preserve the legal and seigneurial rights over the men that the abbey possessed at Janly. He asserted his feudal rights in an act of the Tuesday before Easter in the year 1325, in which, Hugues de Janly, knight, (he was therefore armed as a knight in 1325) made semondre his vassal Guill. In 1325, Hughes made a transaction on trial with the abbey of Saint-Étienne about justice and their rights to finagle Genlis. In 1347 and 1349, Hugues receives the receipt of certain sums to which he affixed his seal (which is a fretté to the chief in charge of three cinquefoils). This seal, which is that of the lords of Janly, provides a proof that Hughes adopted the arms of the old lords, and the chief of these arms emphasizes that the Janly are already vassals of the powerful Vergy, then lords of Mirebeau. In January 1355 and March 1356, Hugues attended the States of Burgundy in Dijon. He was a very rich lord; in addition to the seigneury of Janly, he had the seigneuries or estates in Uchey, Beire-le-Fort, Ouges, Pluvault, Saulon-la-Chapelle, Mailly, Gevrey, Barges, Volnay, Saint-Loup, Lux, Givry and Mellecey. On May 5, 1345, he sold the land fiefdom owned by Marguerite, daughter of Guillaume d'Aligny, on the island of Mailly to Pierre d'Épernay. On March 29, 1359, he was a part of the armed escort accompanying Cardinal de Talleyrand-Périgord to Chalon with Hugues de Montjeu, Jehan de Champdivers and Jehan de Recey. Hugh of Janly had five children: William I, the young Hughes, William II, Huguette and Alips. He died before 1363.

(Let's also put aside questions such as whether this bloke was named Hugues, Hughes or Hugh.) Perhaps you intend to add references later, but anyway none are there now. What can't be sourced can't be asserted. So much for Wikipedia-style notability. And as for notability in a normal, non-Wikipedia sense of the word, some of this might conceivably be of interest if it weren't so abstract: "In 1325, Hughes made a transaction on trial with the abbey of Saint-Étienne about justice and their rights to finagle Genlis" (what "transaction"? whose rights? were there really "rights to finagle"?). -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to pile on, and we are supposed to be friendly here... but what is a "transaction on trial"? Is this a transaction about justice or a trial about justice? What does "Hughes attended the States of Burgundy" mean? Yes, clarification would be helpful. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

External links

Draft:Gopinath Ravi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gopinath_Ravi This is my draft. I am creating an article for a model. He is famous personality in Instagram. So can I attach his instagram account in External links? Is that approved? Kamesh Aravind P (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Kamesh Aravind P. Yes, you can add the External Links like Instagram, Youtube, IMDB and others. If possible, adding them under a separate Heading would be good. Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kamesh Aravind P: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more guidance as to what is acceptable as external links here. What Jocelin Andrea said would go under links to generally avoid. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info @Tenryuu 🐲, will rectify the next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelin Andrea (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

How to solve "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."?

Hello there all, I hope you are doing well in healty during golbal pandemic!

Recently i published, a topic on wikipedia, But after few minutes, It was rejected by dear TheBirdsShedTears or Teahouse, Reason was Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Now how to remove that error, and publish to public.

I was prepared long topic, But becuase of some volaiton like Ads or Promoting words, I deleted lot of parapagh texts. so it become smaller topic. but everying is correct and i think there maybe no something wikipedia's againest policy.

Now, I need someone to help, I will share the topic again with him, And i would say to that if there are error you have the permission to remove or add extra words to my topic.

My Username: ImanSalvador ImanSalvador (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is about User:ImanSalvador/sandbox. Its content needed/needs a lot more work before being converted to an article, but description of an Afghan newspaper seems to me fully in accord with the purpose of Wikipedia. (Of course, I may be overlooking something important.) I invite TheBirdsShedTears to explain how the draft was/is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and why ImanSalvador should stop. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is Reliable Sources .... I think. I could not find any in a quick Google search. Also possibly better to start in language of the news outlet --> https://ps.wikipedia.org/ Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper only exists on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other similar websites. It is not even approved by Google Adsense. As I can see, it may take several years for the newspaper in question to meet the minimum requirements of notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with refill in regards to page: The Sentence is Death

Created the page: The Sentence is Death. Shortly afterwards it received the tag that it was using bare URLs. There is only one bare URL, but when running refill I receive the error message: “Redirected to homepage”. What do I do now? Thank you. Anastasios999 (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Anastasios999, you have cited the first Reference correctly by using the Template:Cite. But the others are just used as bare links; which means you have only referred to a bare site without adding info about it. The first one was cited well. See WP:CITE for more info on citing references. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Writers

Dear Writers, I have written my first article on Wikipedia and wonder how long it will take to be published?  Lilly Antonia (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lilly Antonia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history has no contributions(other than this post); but if you have a draft ready to submit through Articles for Creation, it could take up to 5 months to be approved and formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If you link us the page, we can give you more information, but as 331dot says the process is incredibly backlogged as we get hundreds of submissions per day, many of which take several minutes to properly assess, and we have barely a double-digit number of active reviewers. Reviews are done in no particular order so it could be 24 hours or 5 months. — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle needed on KS Wiki

Can someone Import twinkle on KS Wiki?

Can anyone here help me to get twinkle on Ks Wiki as we are struggling there to maintain the project. Since I here came across twinkle few months ago, it is really hard to maintain Ks.Wikipedia without twinkle. I will be really thankful if someone can help me with it. Thankyou. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 10:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Iflaq It looks like Twinkle can be setup for other languages, Wikipedia talk:Twinkle seems to be place to discuss this (I see you've already done this), and Wikipedia:Twinkle/Localisation has some code information about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302, Thankyou for taking time to put ears to my issue. I already had made a request at Twinkle talk but could not interest editors to make it happen. Since I am not pro at coding, I am requesting some one more senior in the field to do it. I will be very happy if you ping someone who will be interested. Thankyou. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 10:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Atheism Page

I would like to add [https:/atheistshelping.org/ Atheists Helping the Homeless] as an external link to the Atheism page. Is it allowable? Can you help me please?

 Satxjoe (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Satxjoe Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a purpose in doing so other than just wanting to tell the world about it(i.e. promote it), please bring it up on the article talk page for discussion. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of links. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Doppelgänger accounts

When is the best time to start making Doppelgänger accounts? Kayree kh (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kayree kh: Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you concerned that someone may be trying to impersonate you? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I was just curious when was the best time. Kayree kh (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that WP:DG says that such accounts are not to be used for editing, I can't see the point unless your username is something which would be easily impersonated, which isn't the case here. You may have been thinking about alternate accounts (WP:VALIDALT), which can be useful if you regularly edit from a public computer, for example. If you do create such an account, Kayree kh, you should mark them with {{User alternative account|Kayree kh}}, so as not to be accused that the extra one(s) are sockpuppets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

New term article rejected

I just created an article regarding a new term in the industry, there is not many external articles about it, but it has been talking a lot in the industry like in industry conferences. Is this kind of new term not acceptable in wikipedia? I have tried to link to companies pages that offering related products/services, but unfortunately my article got rejected. A bit disappointing since my intention is to bring in new updated information happening in the financial world and it was my first trial. Still want to learn why and hopefully do it in a better way next time. Awg2018 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Awg2018 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, new terminology generally does not merit a Wikipedia article, see WP:NEOLOGISM. This term must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing that it is in widespread use, in order to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means it might be able to be improved to the point where it was acceptable. However, a cursory glance shows it is in poor shape currently. For example it says Everyone in the finance industry knows.... Really? Do you have a reliable source that says that and could it even conceivably be true? Also, you need to read WP:SOLUTION and your first article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Hello, do we have an option to archive our talk page discussions similiar to that of the these articles. Like some sort of script or adjusting preferences in gadgets? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pillechan Please see H:ARC#Automated archiving, there are two types of archiving bots available for use. You can compare which bots you would like using the comparison table. Both bots are quick and easy to setup, you can check out the documentation on how to setup for Cluebot III here or for Lowercase sigmabot III here. In case, you want the same bot used in Teahouse, Lowercase sigmabot III is what you want. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Need a Clarification

Hi there! So, I just got my second article approved. And the reviewer has left a comment of:

"Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer"

Does this mean that I can create article directly into Wikipedia's Mainstream without review? Or it does mean that there would be no review for my next article?

Kindly clarify the aforementioned questions. Thanks in advance!!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: It just means that you have the technical ability to create new articles directly in mainspace by clicking any red link and starting editing. Wether thats a good Idea or not is often case-dependent and depends on your skills and knowledge in the topic area, particular about the special notability criteria in some cases. You may still create and submit drafts to AfC, if you are unsure wether its ready for mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jocelin Andrea: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you choose to create articles directly in mainspace, the Wikipedia:New Page Patrol would review your article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given your past experiences (more article failures than successes) I recommend continuing using AfC. You should know that if your skip AfC, reviewers at New Pages Patrol can do everything from leave it be, tag that it needs more references, return it to draft, start an Articles for Deletion, or initiate Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you three @Victor Schmidt, @GoingBatty, and @David notMD. But I also have another doubt. I would follow what @David notMD suggested.

Is there any way that I or anyone can remove the messages of my article being rejected from my talk page? I just planned to start a whole new Talk Page. Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

For information on what you may or may remove from your user talk page, see WP:REMOVED. Note, however, that editors can see in the page history what has been removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jocelin Andrea: There is no mechanism to start a new talk page, but you can archive or delete messages once you have read them. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Subpages

Which tag are we supposed to place if we wish to delete a subpage created by ourself? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 

@Ken Tony: Try {{db-self}}. GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Help on Article Neutrality

Hello! I am currently working on the draft of an article regarding James E. Stewart that has been declined for the following reasons:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." & "This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft is still written in a non-neutral fashion. On the one hand, the subject probably does satisfy general notability. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the current submitter will be able to write a neutrally worded article, whether in the year 2021 or the year 2022 or any other year. This draft is being declined for now rather than rejected, only because the subject probably is notable. Before resubmitting this draft, either ask for advice at the Teahouse or find a collaborator. If this draft is resubmitted in approximately its current form, it will be rejected."

I had submitted the article for review previously and received the same reasons, so I went back through and got rid of what I thought were any non-neutral/peacock phrases, but it seems I didn't completely. If someone could read the draft and explicitly point out the parts that are non-neutral, I would be most grateful.

Thank you! JorodHistory (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:James E. Stewart. Deor (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Major weakness is that all but a few refs are to the book about Stewart. Surely there were newspaper articles about him? These do not need to accessible online. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There are a few articles about him, but they're all short and lack the more specific information the book provides, so I only used the articles as sources when it was something that the book didn't mention.

Editor's rights for the English Wikipedia?

Hello everyone, I would like to add an article to the English Wikipedia but until now I have full author's rights only in my German "home" (in case this page is accessible for you - here is my global account information). As the two projects work on very similar principles: Is it possible to be granted author's status directly? Thx! ReMü77 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ReMü77. You will be autoconfirmed and able to create articles when you have made three more edits on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@ReMü77:(edit conflict) I have to disagree on you, the english Wikipedia and the german Wikipedia are quite different. For an example, on the german Wikipedia, buisnesses with 1000 staff members are presumed to be inclusionable, while we don't have such a rule here. As these projects are quite differnt, it would be unwise to let you create a new article directly in mainspace. You are however more than welcome to create a draft using the article wizard. I am going to post a welcome on your talkpage in a minute. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of SNGs?

I've started opening some deletion discussions and I've come across WP:SNG occasionally, but I don't understand what the point of them is. For instance, WP:WEBCRIT says "that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" and further states that "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." That sounds a lot like the page in question would need to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Similarly, WP:RPRGM states that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone," which again seems to indicate that the radio program would need to meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG. WP:BOOKCRIT is similar too as most of the criteria would almost necessarily lead to the topic also meeting WP:GNG. Are there actually cases of pages meeting an SNG while also not meeting GNG? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, the answer to the latter part of your question is yes, a professor or academic can meet any criterion from WP:PROF (an SNG) and not pass GNG and it would be sufficient for a standalone article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, the purpose of SNGs is to give editors an various easy to use tools to determine when articles in a broad topic area are highly likely to pass the GNG or, in some cases, WP:BASIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Cullen328: so generally SNGs aren't used to determine whether an article deserves a stand alone article but on rare occasions it can. Is it possible for a subject to meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:RPRGM and receive a stand alone article without simultaneously meeting GNG? These are the SNGs I come across most frequently and I just want to know if it's even possible for this scenario to occur. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, In simple terms without much verbose, an SNG AFAIK is used to support GNG or rather serve as an alternate route. Some SNG's expressly state that if a criterion from that SNG is met they quality for a standalone article. I mean, see WP:NACADEMIC. Celestina007 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: In my side of the Wikisphere, WP:NSOCCER is a pretty good example. The requirement is just played... in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues, which results in a huge number of stubs. It probably goes without saying that I'm not a fan of that SNG. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yidnekatchew Tessema picture, passed away 1987

Greetings! Question, i want to add a picture to his article, and i will be creating a sports section in Amhara people page including pictures of athletes. He was a Ethiopian sports icon. however it's not clear who holds copyright over his pictures, he died in 1987 that is more than 25 years, can i add a picture? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright can be challenging to determine, and is something taken seriously at Wikipedia. The experts at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be better suited to help you with this. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks i will try there. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfer from Sandbox to Publish Article

I've written an article in Sandbox and now want to Publish it. I've looked all around and instructions say to find the dropdown column above (between the star and Page, and there should be a dropdown column with the word Move. I have no such dropdown column nor any word "move". This is very frustrating. Can someone help on this. I'm new to Wikipedia Article writing and boy, they don't make it easy. Thank you, JLK Jeffrey Lee Kaufman (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeffrey Lee Kaufman: See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft for your options, however, I can tell you that if this would end up in mainspace, it would be quickly moved back. Wikipedia may not be used as a source for Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffrey Lee Kaufman. An account must be autoconfirmed in order to move draft articles to the main space. That means the account must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits. Your draft is not ready for the encyclopedia because it fails to show that this record label is a notable business. You cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Read WP:CIRCULAR. Please also read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffrey Lee Kaufman. I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time: but I'm afraid that that is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into one of the most difficult tasks there is in editing Wikipedia. They don't make building a house easy either, or playing a concerto. Creating a Wikipedia article is perhaps not in the same league as those; but it is much harder than it looks, and in my view a new editor trying to create an article is like a music student who has had a couple of lessons, and tries to play a concerto. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before they try it. As well as being less stressful for them, this will actually add far more to the total value of Wikipedia than most first attempts at new articles do. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone commented about one reason I cannot get my article published is that the recording label Phoenix USA, is not a notable business. Notable business indeed! There are hundreds if not thousands of business references on Wikipedia that could surely be referenced as "not notable". In any case let me be blunt. Is there anyone out there in Wikipedia land that would like to undertake to create and get published the information that clearly would take me months maybe years to get completed. I have a life to lead and would prefer not to have to devote endless hours learning everything that is necessary to play in this "sandbox". So, how would I go about getting a collaborator to work with me on this. Information would be very much appreciated. Jeffrey Lee Kaufman (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone approve the edit request on Talk:Pikachu#Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021, pretty appreciated if someone made it. 180.194.134.226 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a backlog at CAT:ESP and your request is not very old, please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! In the future, I suggest you post one suggestion at a time. Some editors will shy away from a multi-step request with 30 references to review. GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Categorization of my Article: Kootapuli

Hi there! I have got my article Kootapuli approved earlier yesterday. But now, a reviewer has left a comment that it needs to be categorized. And also it seems like I need to add additional citations for verification.

Kindly let me know how to do these. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The only maintenance tag I can see on the article makes references to sources. You may need to read the trio of WP:RS, WP:REFB/WP:CITE. Celestina007 (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Celestina007, I just have added a couple of references, kindly check them if possible. Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea, what was put on your article was a tag of which you are allowed leeway to remove if you have addressed the issues. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a category to the article and removed the tag, which was previously visible at the bottom of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is Logopedia a source or not? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Logopedia is a Fandom site, and "Fandom wikis are considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources", per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fandom. GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Change signature

I want to change my signature. Can someone help me to change? also can someone suggest me some signature? I lack creativity in creating my own signature. Katie Allie (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Katie Allie (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Katie Allie, welcome to the teahouse. What two colo(u)s do you like most? -Justiyaya 18:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: rainbow colour and yellow colour Katie Allie (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Katie Allie: These are my designs, some of them might be hard to read because they are in yellow. (These are not signatures by users, these are designs)

KatieAllie (Hard to read, taken partly from the design here)

KatieAllie

KatieAllie

Bold versions probably better in readability

KatieAllie

KatieAllie

Use source editor to copy the design that you like and paste it into your preferences.

-- Justiyaya 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: Thanks a lot. Katie Allie (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Update a page PIFA SPORTS

The PIFA SPORTS page needs to be updated.

I have made changes with the latest information but it has been reversed by a bot. 2405:201:A:A126:5D09:D748:C9EC:7B9C (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi anon, welcome to the teahouse. You should cite the update by updating the citation and updating "as of 25 March 2015 source". Justiyaya 06:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

My Edits in Prakrit

I added a reliable source with no allegation towards anyone and just a unbiased viewpoint. It was correlated to other sources as well ehich say the same thing therefore i posted it with one resource. Also, it is a mythbuster with multiple viewpoints. Why can't I post it? Akapro990 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Akapro990: Welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot speak to the reliability of the source you used (and you should ask the reverting editor on Talk:Prakrit what their issues are with the source), but the tone of your added content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Akapro990:. Also you should not add whole paragraphs and then mark the edit as WP:MINOR, and please use edit summaries to explain your edits.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How to delete/remove comments from my own talk page?

Can anyone please let me know the steps on how to delete/remove comments from my own talk page? Manalijain (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manalijain. The simplest way is to edit the page and remove all the sections you no longer need. Your Talk Page is your own and you can remove more-or-less anything from it (the do's and don'ts are explained at WP:OWNTALK). Anything you do remove will still be available for others to see in the History of the page and other people will assume you have "read and understood" anything you do remove. Importantly, you must never edit someone else's comment to change its meaning but of course you can just revert any vandalism by "undo" on the vandal's edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Manalijain (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Everyone

I am new to Wikipedia. I want to know how to be a good Wikipedian? Katie Allie (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Katie Allie, you can starting contributing towards the wellness of Wikipedia by creating articles on your own interest. You can start editing articles and start creating articles when you become an autoconfirmed user. See Wikipedia: Your first article for more info. There are a lot more to go! Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what Jocelin Andrea wrote, new editors find creating articles incredibly difficult, as they do not understand all the rules and guidelines. Such attempts are often declined for inadequacies or else outright rejected as having no potential for becoming an article. Better advice is to commit to improving existing articles. That can range from copyediting, to adding adequately referenced content, to removing content that is wrong or not germane, and monitoring articles for vandalism. Only with experience, consider creating an article. Newbies often find the tutorial at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure to be very helpful. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: ;@David notMD: Thank you both for your tips and suggestions. I will try to follow Community guideline first before editing any article. Although, I have recently edited the article Sword Art Online Progressive: Aria of a Starless Night but I am not sure that how much I have improved the article. Can you all review my edits? and suggest some addition and substraction on the mentioned link article? Katie Allie (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Katie Allie, I've looked at your edits of that article. Almost all seem constructive – as I've no knowledge of or interest in the field, I didn't check. I see you replaced "afterwards" by "afterward", which I can assume (I'm British) is standard American usage. You replaced "announced on September 19" by "announced in September 19", which I think is wrong in any dialect. But don't worry about that, it can easily be changed. It seems to me you're doing a great job. Editing articles as you have done is fine. But as David says, inexperienced editors find creating new articles very difficult. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Submission not accepted

Can I ask your staff to create an article. Because my submission are not accepted. Topsiii (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Topsiii. There are no "staff" on Wikipedia; it is a volunteer-run project. Employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia and several other projects, may occasionally intervene in order to prevent legal trouble or personal harm, but creating and editing articles is not their job.

Your draft, Draft:Lillian Culver, is currently waiting for review. It has not yet been accepted nor declined. Be patient, as there are currently 3,842 other articles awaiting for review. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

" When I edit, do I have to add where I got the info from. The exact place or link."Lookylo (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lookylo (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Lookylo. Yes, it is a core policy of Wikipedia that all information be verifiable. Happy editing! Kleinpecan (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources in regards to esports tournament placings

Hey! I'm working on a draft article for the MC Championship series of Minecraft tournaments. So far I've just been collecting information from various sources. I do think I have quite a few good secondary sources regarding a lot of information about the topic, however, one thing I'm lacking in is sources that mention the winners of the earlier events. I feel kind of weird excluding them, however. Would it be acceptable to use a primary source for the dates and winning teams of these earlier events? I don't really feel optimistic about the possibility of a reliable secondary source covering these past events retroactively, however, I do know that the winners are always announced on the official Twitter, so there is at least some concrete documentation of the past winners.

Any insight here would be much appreciated. I'm still new to editing and I'm kind of anxious about the whole thing and wanting to make sure everything is as good as it can be, haha.. Serilly (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:MC Championship   melecie   t 23:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serilly I think you'd get more specifically relevant advice at WikiProject Video games. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the template.

Hi. I have just moved a new article entitled "Chiral analysis" from my sandbox to Wikipedia article space. I am getting an alert: Template:User sandbox

I would appreciate if some one could assist me to resolve the issue.Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Valliappan Kannappan I have removed that parameter now, Cheers Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 08:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Need Guidance in creation of Draft:Vivek Verma.

Hello I need assistance in creating a draft of a Singer, fothat draft I am providing some references, Can someone help me in drafting it as per the wiki guidelines? also I want someone to review if these sources would be enough to make it pass or shall I drop the idea to draft it, Thanks

References

• The Hindu
• The Diplomat
• Hindustan Times
• Milenio
• Rajasthan Patrika
• Times of India
• Indian Express
• News 18 Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

suryabeej, to establish that he's notable enough for an article, we'll need reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of him. The Times of India article is only three sentences long, and all the others are reporting what he said, so aren't independent. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate: most of those sources are interviews with a bit of commentary mixed in, even though they don't look like it from first glance. Interviews are primary sources and don't contribute to notability. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby, @Maproom thanks but if we talk as per User:RoySmith/Three best sources ain't This, This and This makes him pass it? cuz these three are not at all the Primary Sources Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 08:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Suryabeej: I can't read the first one, so I'm not going to comment on it. I'd call the both the second and the third one interviews, especially since both rely heavily on what he says and build off of it to describe what he does. Both are also written in a promotional tone. The second source's last sentence uses "signs off", which also imply an interview. The general gist here is that the sources are not independent of the subject, meaning that we can't show that unrelated organizations write about Verma without him giving some incentive to do so, and therefore Verma is not notable enough as a person yet. As I understand it, Wikipedia offloads the decision of what's "important" enough for an article to our reliable sources. That being said, if the first source is and independent source and you have more like it, feel free to use them as indicators of notability; Wikipedia does not consider foreign language sources inferior. If you can show notability, information stated as a fact in these links may be used as sources to back up information. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Why my article is declined?

Why my article on Abhijit Tripathy is rejected? Abhijit2505 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Abhijit2505: The reason is listed in this banner that you removed from the draft. You need to include reliable, independent sources to show that your subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. All of your references are written by the subject, which are not independent. To better understand Wikipedia's concept of notability, see WP:N. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Declines and Comments must stay with drafts until drafts accepted, as which time the reviewer will remove. I restored those. David notMD (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Given your User name, I am guessing that this is an attempt at an article about yourself. See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Text edits to an artist biography - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Fiddes -

I keep adding in text he, Christopher Fiddes, has approved and it keeps being reverted by one of your editors. What's on the page now is just four paragraphs whereas I added about four more. This artist is 86 and holding his first retrospective show - I am doing his publicity for free, as a favour, and would really like this extra info to be on his Wiki page. Can I/you do anything to make it permanent and stop it being deleted? I would also like to add a pic of him to his biography box and one or two more pics of his paintings, ideally. Scolopaxs (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the edit summary in the article history, your additions were unsourced. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating an article

The Wiki article that relates to myself has been removed for some reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqar_Mohammad (there is no article relating to me {Waqar} in this page anymore) 2A02:C7F:CC41:9300:500C:A5DA:B956:1542 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the outcome of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Mohammad. Wikipedia only hosts articles on topics which are "notable"—a jargon word referring to the number of reliable, in-depth, independent sources available. The community has decided that this condition is not met, and so we won't host a biographhy of you. (It's not meant to be a personal slight or an insinuation that you haven't achieved great things; we're just an encyclopedia with a very specific scope.) The page has been redirected to List of Warwickshire Cricket Board List A players, where you are listed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There are several players listed on that page who's biography remains on Wiki despite having exactly the same details and sources etc as mine. Happy to add additional details to make my page worth another review, so how would this be possible?

Please read WP:OSE. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help us identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rather than remove another 10+ articles from the same page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warwickshire_Cricket_Board_List_A_players (which you can do if they don't meet the policy) it would be better to make these articles more worthwhile and useful to Wiki readers. I would suggest the option of reinstating the deleted article (Waqar Mohammad) within that page and giving the opportunity to present better content within that article and the others on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CC41:9300:A577:4BC0:E8C1:29B3 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Better content would require sources, but the article was redirected because of a lack of them. Are you able to suggest any? Wikipedia's notability requirements dictate that we need substantial, independent coverage, which in your case could be profiles in newspapers or perhaps cricket magazines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so the suggestion is to include the content that used to be at Waqar Mohammad in that list, and do the same with the other non-notable pages and redirect them? This does seem like a reasonable way forwards. In the case of the former article about you, very little of the material actually appears to have been sourced, so we can't include that without better sourcing, but I've added a sentence to the list. I would suggest that you could redirect and move some content to the list on any players with similarly-little sourcing as Waqar Mohammad had—but looking down the first few, they're all at least slightly different situations sourcing-wise. I can't implement all of your suggestion in full because it would literally take me several hours, and I'm not going to bump something off my high-priority list for this. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my query. I have a few links I could immediately find below, but can share more and obviously add textual content that would be of interest to read and share. Please let me know how this can be achieved in order for the article to be reinstated once approved: ESPNCricinfo Player Profile https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/waqar-mohammad-17899 Player stats (selected games) https://staffordshirecricket.play-cricket.com/player_stats/batting/12452?rule_type_id=179&sub_tab=batting_summary&tab=batting Player stats (selected games) https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/earlswoodcricketclub/teams/98092/player/waqar-mohamed-969142/19043 Player stats (selected games) https://waterorton.play-cricket.com/player_stats/batting/4526569?rule_type_id=179 Wazir Mohammad (father) Pakistan's oldest living cricketer https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/803728-wazir-mohammad-pakistans-oldest-living-test-cricketer B'ham Evening Mail newspaper article https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoMe2qThpkcaiW4pJzEwtzfuEXgL Extensive profile on CricketArchive - but this is subscription only Thanks again.

The problem is that most of these are just lists of statistics, which is routine coverage rather than the sort of in-depth biographical coverage required by WP:NBIO. The article about Wazir Mohammad is the sort of coverage that helps demonstrate notability, but it's about Wazir Mohammad. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but these were references and sources that you asked for. As I mentioned above, I can provide the written content that would warrant inclusion but don't know how to have the article reinstated in order to add said content. And still don't understand the basis on which around 10 profiles on the same page are still there if the criteria applied to the article in question is applied equally in those cases. However, as already said before, I'd rather have this article reinstated correctly - in line with making it interesting - than just delete more articles. I just need the access to add the content!

The written content would need to be based entirely on published sources, and I'm not seeing much evidence that enough of these exist. As for other articles, the English Wikipedia currently has 6,331,350 articles, so it's not realistic for all of the problematic ones to be identified and nominated for deletion at once. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that enough sources do exist to meet WP:NBIO, you'd be best following the instructions at WP:YFA and submitting it as a draft for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fourth of July shootings

On July 6, 2021, I saw about 150 people killed on shootings accross of the United States. Lkas123 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lkas123: The shootings are documented in news reports, and if a specific incident is notable, a Wikipedia editor may work on an article. Do you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lkas123: Sadly, mass shootings in the US are very common, but Wikipedia is not the news.Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I start a business with your tea House on my place location

Buisness  Galib8076 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your business. RudolfRed (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Galib8076, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it is against our policy to use this platform for commercial purposes thus it is not possible to use Wikipedia for business(of any sort) you are however welcome to become an editor here just like myself. We are sorry if this wasn’t the feedback you may have anticipated. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to walk into the Teahouse with your laptop, buy a cup of tea, sit down at a table, connect to the free wi-fi and conduct online business: but first you have to find the Teahouse. Where is it? We're not telling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

emails to a User

A few times I have received emails that appear to originate from within Wikipedia. I can't seem to find out how to do this. I think there are times when Users would like to contact each other offline. How is it done? BrucePL (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Emailing users. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BrucePL: See Wikipedia:Emailing users. If you've provided an email address in your preferences, go to someone else's userpage and you'll find a button saying "email this user", which is located on the left hand list of links under "Tools". This only works if the other user provided an email address to Wikipedia and did not disable this function. A word of caution: Wikipedia works best through public communication (that is, through Talk pages) for transparency purposes, and I know of many users that would much prefer messages about Wikipedia to be on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@BrucePL: You might want to check out Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo where you can set up automated e-mails for various events. These are mainly for system messages to inform you for example that someone has pinged you (as here) and are helpful if you don't log in to Wikipedia very often. I have mine set up to send one email a day at most. As has already been mentioned, it is best not to contact people via their email and if anyone adds something to your Talk Page you will get a system message to say so if you have these preferences set correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing a change request

Hello, I have updated a change request from the backlog. How do I mark it as changed? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Occasionalpedestrian: Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this has to do with Talk:Trollpak. Looking at the documentation for {{request edit}}, you can either change it to {{request edit|A}} or {{request edit|answered=yes}} to mark it as implemented. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I write Wikipedia page about the company where I work?

Can I write Wikipedia page about the company where I work? I have lot of knowledge about this company and the company does lot of innovative products. I am not paid by my company for writing the Wikipedia page. I like to do it as self interest or hobby. How can I begin and what must I keep in my mind thte page wont be deleted? Rohan von Indien (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Rohan von Indien Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for asking first. There are ways to do what you are asking, but I'm not sure you realize what you are potentially getting into. First, if you work for the company, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit, so you will have to declare as a paid editor. Please also review conflict of interest.

Please understand that a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself or in your personal knowledge of the company- we want to know what others completely unaffiliated with your company have decided on their own to say about it. So no press releases, annoucements of routine business activities like the opening of a location or the raising of capital, staff interviews, or other primary sources. In essence, you would need to set aside everything you know about the company and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people have great difficulty doing that, but it is possible.

Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons for your company to not want one. Any information about the company, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent reliable sources. You cannot lock it to the text the company might prefer, or prevent others from editing it.

If you still think that you can write such an article, you should first read Your First Article and then go to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. You should also gather at least three sources with significant, independent coverage of the company to summarize. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Rohan von Indien (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we add information regarding media (instagram & youtube) records/achievements?

I wanted to ask that can we include information regarding social media (instagram & youtube) records/achievements made by the popular person on the wiki pgae? Manalijain (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Manalijain (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Manalijain: Yes you can, and {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and {{Infobox Instagram personality}} gives you structured ways to do so. GoingBatty (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Submission deleted

Hello, I am writing to ask why my submission was deleted. I submitted an article with important information regarding both a historical building and providing provenance for a large collection of guitars which belonged to a well-respected guitarist. The explanation given was that my article would need to be re-written because it was promotional. I am simply trying to establish a wikipedia page where works of art are created similarly to those which are featured on metadata sites such as Musicbrainz, discogs and allmusic. Please advise. Angeleenie (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Angeleenie: Welcome to the Teahouse! See the message on your talk page about the deletion of your draft. If you have any further questions, then please contact the deleting administrator. GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Angeleenie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can view your deleted draft, and I agree with its deletion, as it was little more than an advertisement for the studio. Wikipedia articles (not just "page") must do more than merely tell of the existence of the subject and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered told little about the company itself. Not every recording studio merits an article, even if some do. Please see Your First Article.

If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How to change my user name?

Hi,

How can I change my username? I was too excited about creating my account in Wikipedia and I never had time to think of a better username. Your response will be highly appreciated.

Thank you. Wbmanaois (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wbmanaois Please read WP:RENAME for the instructions on how to do change your username. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wbmanaois You can also just create a new account and abandon your old one. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvements for draft article

Hi, I am the new Wikipedian in Residence for Annual Reviews (publisher). While working on something else I came across Draft:Knowable Magazine which appears to have been started by a student for a class. It was submitted for review but refused due to not demonstrating notability. I have suggested two new paragraphs, with inline citations, on its talk page to address the notability issue. I have also tagged the creator of the page about this, but I suspect they are unlikely to return since the spring semester has ended. Since Annual Reviews publishes Knowable Magazine, it would be a inappropriate under COI guidelines for me to move the text and resubmit the article myself. (Note: I did fix some incorrect information that was in the draft.) I am hoping that someone else can step in to help. Thank you. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Providing that you make the required COI declaration, MaryMO (AR), I don't see why you can't submit the draft yourself. Part of the rationale for the drafts review system is to allow editors with a declared COI to submit articles, so that they get checked by an independent editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Cordless Larry, I'll go ahead and make the changes since you consider it appropriate for me to do so. I didn't want to overstep. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking For Wikipedia Page From Which This Equation Was Screenshot

Hello,

Looking for the wikipedia page from which this image was screenshot. All, to date, indications indicate that this equation exists somewhere in the realm of Lagrangian and double pendulum mathematics / physics. Any way to specifically locate the page, and original image, using this information?

Kind Regards,

Daisy1234 Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/183838731@N04/51287775604/in/dateposted-public/ 86.28.166.2 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a pretty specific question. You might have more luck asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where editors who are interested in math topics are more likely to read it. Regards SoWhy 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure this is from Wikipedia? Searching for pieces of the syntax that would have been used to write this equation turns up nothing for me. Could it be from somewhere else? - Astrophobe (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This was asked also in a reddit post (six times actually) some ideas were given and the same question of Astrophobe has appeared in the comments but no answer was given either there which is important as it should be useful to know if the search space is empty or not before start looking. Dabed (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft disappeared

I've been working for a few days on a draft article (using the visual editor). This morning the interaction with the editor was being "weird", e.g. would not accept carriage returns, changing a section type would jump to another part of the document, and others.

I decided to do a page refresh (ctrl-F5) and upon return the entire draft article has disappeared. I'm unable to find any trace of it. Needless to say this is very disheartening.

Am I going to have to just start over? ThatMarcC (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

ThatMarcC, hey there. Can you explain in detail as to the draft topic and the editor interaction? How is it "weird", what are "carriage returns", etc? That should give more understanding to your perspective. GeraldWL 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you also clarify whether you saved the draft (by clicking "publish") during those days, or did you keep the edit window open the whole time? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis:: Carriage return. @ThatMarcC: unfortunally, since you don't seem to have saved anything on Wikipedia servers you will have to start over. Note that "Publish changes" is meant to understood as "save changes", not "publish this to the main encyclopedia. The button was renamed a while ago to remind you that everything here is public if one knowns where to look. I have two recommendations for you in future: 1) Regularely hit that publish changes button, so that your progress is saved onto Wikipedia servers, and 2) when the editor bugs out, try to switch to source editing via the pencil icon in the top right. You might also want to make sure that in your preferences, under "Editing", the dropdown "Editor Mode" is set to "Show me both editor tabs" so that you can switch between editors as much as you like. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

An IP heard from

 42.113.3.10 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

section title added. Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding the Voice or Translation Text to the name of my Draft: Kootapuli

Hi there, I would just thank @User:Dan art for their edition of my Draft:Kootapuli. I just would like to add the translated name to the Draft. I have already added it, but kindly anyone please check if that is fine. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea, hi! Do you mean the Tamil name (கூட்டபுளி) that you added at the very beginning of the article? It is usually fine, and many many articles have such native names included. But it gets complicated in case of India. Basically, because India is so large and so diverse, allowing one translation leads to other people wanting to add translations in their own language and it gets messy quite quickly. So, there is community consensus that no Indic scripts should be added to articles about the country of India. See WP:INDICSCRIPT. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Subject Deleted

Why is my input removed? WikiBoyne (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your first attempt was reverted because it was unsourced. Your next attempt was reverted because it included misplaced external links. To learn how to provide references, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@WikiBoyne, coupled with what my senior colleague @David Biddulph has told you, except I’m seeing this incorrectly, it appears you are merely 6 hours old on this collaborative project or am i missing something? Generally speaking, it is a good idea not to edit live articles (articles on mainspace) just yet. I recommend you practice a little in your sandbox before attempting to edit live articles. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't add a link in an infobox

Hi everyone !

I've tried to add a link in an infobox using the double square brackets, but the text only show as... simple text.

Have I missed something ? Motherofcities (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Motherofcities - without knowing the article, it is difficult to comment, which article is it?
I suspect the article has WP:Pending changes protection, so your edits will not be visible until a confirmed editor has approved them - Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Motherofcities Assuming you're talking about Eva Yaneva (the only article you've edited), then links to articles are case-sensitive. The article is Volero Le Cannet (with capital L), and you were trying to link to Volero le Cannet (lower case l). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I hate to say it Joseph2302, but Volero le Cannet would appear in green (as shown), as it is a redirect, whereas, if there was no redirect, it would appear in red, not in "plain text" as described above - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(@Arjayay: not too important but I think it's a user script or preference that makes you see redirects in green. I see that link as blue, same as an article link, but DAB pages as orange because of some script I have somewhere.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The orange disambiguation links are probably due to a gadget in Special:Preferences. ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. It seems to work with the lower case l, thanks, but what's strange is that the article in question (and its address) both use a capital L (which is the correct way to spell it, as Le Cannet is the name of a city in France). Is there no way to spell it correctly in the infobox ?

Well I changed the infobox from Volero le Cannet to Volero Le Cannet, and it works for me - I don't know what is different to when you tried - it may have been some hidden mark-up ? - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I created the redirect to the lower case article a few minutes beforehand. Which is why it works now. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've just removed the links to Volero Le Cannet : the article it sends to is not about Volero Le Cannet at all but about Volero Zürich (I should've seen that earlier, I might be a bit more tired than I thought :) ). The title of the article "Volero Le Cannet" will have to be changed to "Volero Zürich", but I don't know how to do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherofcities (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Motherofcities: If you read the article you will see that it is the same club. I have reinstated the links which you removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely more tired than I thought ! Thanks everyone !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherofcities (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla Warfare - On Dick Ellis page.

I hope I didn't mess up your home page where I tried to respond to your comments about citations. I have two constructive criticisms. One is that you have a citation regarding the authorship of the 'Origins' book. It says it is proven but offers no proof and attempts to obtain this proof have failed. Why not cite it? Attempts to access the paper have not been responded to.

Secondly, the reason I doubt that it is proven is that by going to the publishers papers I find Konni Zilliacus received the royalties and wrote similar books. But I have no citation because it is original research although I did specify where the papers were held. Why would Dick Ellis write a book, as an MI6 officer, for somebody later suspected of being a subversive agitator National Archives - and so again no citation barring (KV 2/4415-4417) .

What is the point of as citation that says nothing meaningful- or could that user be asked to expand?

 Wikihgd (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You want it on the page, you need to include a strong third-party source that corroborates it, particularly if it is contentious. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging GorillaWarfare, who this message seems to be directed at, and ParticipantObserver, who seems to have undone Wikihgd's edit on Dick Ellis. (Wikihgd, this is a general help desk. You can talk about edits on the talk pages of articles, here Talk:Dick Ellis, and you can get a user's attention by linking their username in a message where you sign your comment.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe this falls under Wikipedia:No original research. As per Wikihgd's comments above, this would be original research, and so is not allowed. That being said, this may be a useful discussion to have at Talk:Dick Ellis. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-creation of a deleted article

If some article that was created by someone in Wikipidea was deleted after a discussion, then can I re-create that article? 2409:4073:287:A39D:4E4:DD4F:F34B:3CF5 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:G4. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. If you have read the deletion discussion, and you believe that the subject now meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability, and you can writ about it in a non-promotional way, I advise you to create a draft using the articles for creation system. If your draft is acceptable, then a reviewer will accept it as an article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Acquiring a photo for a BLP

I've been working on the Lex Fridman draft and it should get approved soon but I want a photo. Can I just contact him for a public domain photo? I assume I can't just grab one from his twitter... Thanks in advance. SmolBrane (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@SmolBrane, you assume correctly. You can ask. The simple way is that he takes a selfie and uploads it himself with the process that starts here. The photo must be "donated" by the copyright holder, and that is usually the photographer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, taking a new unpublished photo for use here is fine, or the photographer of an already-published image (like from a photoshoot) can release the copyright in this process: https://relgen.toolforge.org/. It's important that it's the photographer and not the subject. We don't quite need it to be public domain, but we do need it to be available for anyone, inside or outside of Wikipedia, to reuse for commercial purposes and derivative works, with URL attribution (see commons:Commons:Licensing). — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you both. I have also since learned that YouTube screenshots are an option so that might be the best way. I'll get around to it. SmolBrane (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Learned from where, SmolBrane? Most YouTube videos are copyrighted—only a minority with explicit CC-BY-SA licensing (or similar) can be used (for instance, see the licensing in this video's description; but most videos won't have that there). — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I was just looking at the origin of the Bret Weinstein photo as an example. I will be sure to assess the licensing regardless. SmolBrane (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, youtube looks like it probably won't work. If I contact Lex directly, how do YOU know that he's licensing an image in the way that I state? SmolBrane (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, SmolBrane: the copyright holder (who is probably not Fridman himself, unless it's a selfie) would either have to upload it himself, or send a mail to OTRS as explained as donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: I direct people to this page, which has the verbiage the permission holder has to send to Wikipedia, when they send in the image. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries Don't be surprised if the heavy legalese intimidates Fridman. I've started a few biographies of living people and reached out to the subjects for a photo, only to be rejected. You'll have to explain that the language is to protect Wikipedia from charges of copyright infringement, and it doesn't mean that the photo will be abused. After all, as you pointed out, there are already photos available of him online that someone could take and abuse anonymously. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, honestly I probably won't bother to facilitate an upload myself, it's not critical that the article have a photo. But I may send him a message if the article doesn't get a photo within a few months after approval. Something appropriately licensed may already exist. SmolBrane (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FINSIA#Partners

I have just started adding references with URLs to newspaper acrticles that show the developing FINSIA story, as it badly needs updating.

But while the number annotations 7,8,9,10 have been accepted in boxes like these [], they haven't synched to be same as the previous references. Looking through the editorial guide, I couldn't find anythig that would fix this.

Any help gratefully received. Finsiacomms (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

At FINSIA, you are doing it wrong. For examples of how to insert references, go to the Structure section and click on Edit. That will show references that are properly embedded in the body of the article. Doing it properly automatically creates superscripted numbers and numbered refs under References. Check out WP:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to promote the organisation. Please try to tone down the promo language. And the Memberships section can easily be removed, as Wikipedia is not a mirror of its subjects' websites.

PS: based on your user name, have you any connection with FINSIA? COI declaration is mandatory if you are not unconnected to FINSIA.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Valid Sources

Recently I got to know that Youtube and Facebook links are not considered valid ones. Which all sources information are considered to be valid ones? 2409:4073:287:A39D:4E4:DD4F:F34B:3CF5 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the advice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

For YouTube, it's all about who uploaded by video. My kid's YouTube channel isn't a reliable source, but a channel run by a reputable news organization could be. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube and others on the list to get a flavor of what sources are reliable and what aren't. GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

How can i edit longer?

 VaxRiser (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@VaxRiser: Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please clarify your question? I'm not sure what you mean by longer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, maybe it's regarding something in his talk page, where an editor, WikiDan61, brings up "You appear to be editing articles merely to change a few words, but without any real aim to improve the articles. Many of your edits have been reverted because they actually detracted from the quality of the articles. Based on your user page, I have to ask if you are here to build the encyclopedia at all?" GeraldWL 16:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's because i have an grammar error. could you help?VaxRiser (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

VaxRiser, if it's true that your edits are gramatically wrong, then the only solution would be, well, improve your grammar. Take online tutorials. It's entirely on you. GeraldWL 17:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If your English is a bit wobbly, can I suggest that you concentrate on factual editing (finding references for things that need citations, adding to articles that are too short, or need extra explanation) rather than copy-editing? There is no shame in doing what one is best at. It is very hard to copy-edit/correct grammar in a language where your own writing is not quite perfect, but WP desperately needs people who can check references and find good ones! Grammatically wobbly writing that is nevertheless comprehensible and factually correct is super valuable. Elemimele (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@VaxRiser You can find links at the Task Centre, or using this: (ignore the spelling and grammar section)

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

• Teng Ming-Tun
• Sonia Sotomayor
• MTV (Indonesian TV channel)
• Ramapough Mountain Indians
• RK Vardar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

• Warez scene
• Puteri Indonesia 2022
• WFFF-TV
• Tyrannicide
• Max Fishman

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

• Memory paging
• C. G. Conn
• Pulmonary embolism
• Mathias Porseland
• Rail transport in Chad

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

• The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory
• Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction
• L'épreuve de l'étranger
• Maliseet Vocabulary
• Sibawayh the Phonologist

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

• Jish
• ZTE
• Oldsmobile Cutlass
• Davor Džalto
• French submarine Le Conquérant (Q171)

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

• Sullia
• Ploiești
• The Principles of Psychology
• Eastern Oregon
• Glynllifon Street railway station

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

• Time in Malta (band)
• United States Marine Corps rank insignia
• Oh Dal-su
• Henry T. Sloane
• Hikari no Densetsu

More... • Learn how

Add an image

• Margate, Tasmania
• Madonna University, Nigeria
• Mullanpur Dakha
• Mount Carmel Community Hospital
• Mount Washington, Los Angeles

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

• Tu volverás (TV series)
• Manuel Antonio Matta
• Anti-Polish sentiment
• Kamen Rider Kuuga
• Otto Adolf Weismann von Weißenstein

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

―Qwerfjkltalk 06:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

acceptable and unacceptable uses of primary sources

Hi, sorry for this being lengthy, but I wanted to check, does the following suggest a correct understanding of rules about primary sources?

Imaginary article about a (pseudo) scientist:

"During her time in Germany she published, in a journal her friends had started, an article claiming that the world was square shaped. [reference to paper she published in an online pseudoscience journal]. Upon return to France her work took a new focus. Papers she published during this period in fringe science journals focused on the theory that the moon was cylindrical. [Reference to a paper she published in an online pseudoscience journal.]"

Here, the primary sources - the articles in the online pseudoscience journal - are simply characterized by the Wikipedia editor, in a way which future editors can verify. This is an acceptable use of primary sources. Yes?

In contrast:

"She proved that orthodox views were flawed and that the most likely shape for the earth was square [Reference to a paper she published in an online pseudoscience journal.] A few years later she was able to deduce that, in contrast to what mainstream textbooks teach, the moon is likely to be cylindrical shaped. [Reference to a paper she published in an online pseudoscience journal.]"

Here, two assertions are made by the Wikipedia editor: 'Earth is square, the moon is cylindrical.' This passage cannot be published in Wikipedia as it violates guidelines relating to "Do not rely on primary sources to support assertions..." (In addition to the source not meeting quality standards.)

I know that in a real life scenario the question of notability might come up, and the lack of secondary sources might mean there is an objection that this fictional passage would not notable enough for inclusion, but besides that, does it look like I have correctly understood this aspect of Wikipedia policy on acceptable and unacceptable uses of primary sources?

Many thanks. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@VorsprungDurchReden: Erm, not quite. This is quite a fringe example so it might not be that applicable to actual editing, but I'll try. You're correct about the last paragraph, which is that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to determine if something is important enough for inclusion (note that "notability" has a very specific meaning around here and I'm actively avoiding that word). For that reason, I wouldn't even write like the first example unless there's a secondary source that tells me why this paper matters. The wording in the second example is actually not that problematic if you replace "proved" and "was able to deduce that" because of in-text attribution; we're not saying that the earth is really square, we're saying that she said the earth is square (but then again, we want a secondary source). But this example isn't actually so great. If you have something that you're working on, either a draft or an existing article, provide a link and we can give you better advice. Also, my advice for beginners is to avoid primary sources unless you really, really know what you're doing, because what's NPOV and what's not is pretty difficult to discern. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in replying to my question, Ganbaruby! Sorry if my question was poorly written. (For one thing, I really didn't mean to say '...the question of notability 'might' come up'. I am mean to say. the question of notablity 'would certainly come up', if there were no secondary sources.)

I don't mean to push you, but could you say if this seems to match what you were saying?

'If we're not saying that the earth is really square, we're saying that she said the earth is square, then this would remove one problem, But we really want a secondary source, to enhance reliability and to establish that the topic deserves coverage.'

In any case, thanks for the help, and I will think about how to make any future requests for help easier to understand.

My examples did not relate to anything I am working on. I suppose that all I was trying to get to was - if notable enough - an editor can say that a pseudoscience or fringe science article exists and describe that article. But as you say, without secondary sources, it would be difficult to justify inclusion. VorsprungDurchReden (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@VorsprungDurchReden: Yes, you seem to have the right idea. To elaborate, there are lots of fringe theories out pushed by many different people, but most of those are not within the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia. Instead, we use secondary, reliable sources to tell us what's important and what's not, and we use those sources to build article content. Sometimes, that content is in the form of a new article, and we consider notability via reliable sources. Other times, we're adding content to an existing article, where we consider due weight and put more emphasis on topics that is prominently discussed by reliable sources. You may want to read WP:FRINGE for a better idea. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is a news report that relies entirely on a Twitter user's screenshots to accuse someone of bigotry (and could not be verified by myself) reliable?

Note: I had asked this before at this archived question and no one answered it back then

While on a different IP address in this range, I had removed some information from here a long while back, which was re-added by another user, "Faisal" at this revision with the edit summary "reinstate section removed by IP,see talk page". His talk page comment is here, and I am the 2nd IP he is talking about.

I have two issues here:

• That user's reference, while being from a newspaper, is also completely reliant on screenshots from Twitter and does not directly link to the posts. Also, for what it's worth, the article is vague on who wrote it (I remember that OpIndia, a highly unreliable "news" site that is in Wikipedia's spam filter, also hides writer names to avoid legal liability for fake news, but then again I don't know why the Free Press Journal chose to hide the writer's name). I went through the LinkedIn page of D K Goel, the person accused of Islamophobia in the information I removed and the three publicly accessible articles by him don't show him writing "Jaahils continue to endanger our lives - A Muslim man removed his mask and spit on a Manipuri woman. Arrested by the Mumbai police. Still don't believe in the terrorism, Jalalat of these Jaahils? Be ready to suffer in future," (at least according to my browser's Ctrl+F function) which Faisal's reference claims was written by the accused. The accused's articles do show (in my opinion) that the accused probably is an Islamophobe, but I would be violating Wikipedia:SYNTH by calling him an Islamophobe and using his articles to draw that conclusion.
• Faisal says on the talk page "Also the right-wing Hindu nationalist government is encouraging these islamophobes in India. Sad." which looks like a personal attack since he may have intended to call me an Islamophobe (though he may have also intended to call D K Goel an Islamophobe).

So, is Faisal's news report reliable? And am I overreacting by assuming that he made a personal attack? 45.251.33.169 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC) (don't message me on my talk page to inform me that you've replied, I'll be checking this page periodically and I am on a dynamic IP range)

That’s quite an attack article. I’d discuss on the talk page, and do a request for comment if you need broader participation. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• At a first glance, The Free Press Journal seems like a reliable source. Why they decided to publish an attack piece is not for us to speculate: the fact remains that the subject has been credibly accused in a reasonable source, and the article should reflect that. (Though I could be convinced that it should be put in the journal's rather than in Wikipedia's voice.)

It is common to use screenshots of Twitter or other websites to avoid them breaking after the posts are deleted by the subject (though screenshot and link would be better). It is also somewhat common for newspapers not to give the name of the authors of some articles, especially when the article is controversial (this does not avoid legal liability because the identity of the author would be uncovered if a prosecution occurs, but it avoids internet trolls). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Chit chat

Good evening to all the WP editors. I would like to ask if there exists any WP policy related to the chit chat, as it is substantially depracated in the Homepage talk. Reasonably, it shall be extended to the whole encyclopedia, except for a limited numbe rof thematic bars for the free time or similar, if existing. Thanks in advance for any eventual help. Have a good football game. Let me say: Forza Azzurri!Theologian81sp (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Theologian81sp. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theologian81sp: Editors who are interested in chit chat are welcome to use Internet Relay Chat (IRC) - see Wikipedia:IRC. GoingBatty (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Discord server also serves a similar purpose, IIRC. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and GoingBatty:, thanks for your replies. I will try it in a second moment. Now, I am busy and I am going to finish studying for an university exam.

Have a good day in the holy Name of the Lord Jesus Christ God. Theologian81sp (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

let me say in brackets this edit has disappeared (oldid 1031005919 of 29th June). I don't know the reason.Theologian81sp (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You removed part of it yourself here. The rest of that post was archived with the rest of the thread, and is now located at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1114#Category talk:Freemasonry in the Roman Catholic Church. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

300 or more victims are destinated to a so special archive (Archive 1114)? It is self-commenting. No other words to be added, for the moment. Regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Er, what? All Teahouse threads are automatically archived when there has been no new activity in them for a few days. Topics are not archived based on their contents, so the natural disaster you mentioned in that post has no bearing on the fact that it was archived, nor on which archive it ended up in. Archive 1114 was started by the archival system when archive 1113 was full. --bonadea contributions talk 12:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Account

How is it possible to get a German Wname1 Wikipedia account again? Wname1 (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wname1: Editors at English Wikipedia cannot help with questions about other Wikipedia or Wikimedia projects, as each project is separate and has different rules. You will have to address your block over at de.wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wname1: de:WP:SPP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the proper recourse?

Hello, on article Dissociative identity disorder I find user 2001:8003:A8F9:0:6D5E:7227:B87F:A94C is stating that the disease is fake, while not providing any resources as seen on the diff. I reverted the addition, but he revert back and forth, and I already reverted 3 times so I can't revert more per WP:3RR. As of now, the article is still showing his version that are unsourced. What is the proper resolution on this? I have made attempts on the Talk page on the article, but there is no response. Reporting to the edit warring noticeboard is wrong, as he haven't violated the WP:3RR. And reporting to the WP:AIV is wrong too as he haven't got the 4th warning. Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@SunDawn: I'd call the IP's edits vandalism, and reverting vandalism isn't considered violations of 3RR. You're also allowed to skip levels in the Template:uw-vandalism tree if the user refuses to get the point. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I reported the editor at WP:3RRN, as they made four reverts after receiving the edit-warring Twinkle warning. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ganbaruby and Tigraan! Have a nice day! SunDawn (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Which date to use in Cite web template

Sometimes, online news articles have an "Updated" date as well as the date the article was originally published. Which is best for filling in the "date" parameter in the Template:cite web template? And does the "orig-date" parameter factor into this somehow? Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the "date" parameter should be the updated (most recent) date in this case, with use of the orig-date to clarify if necessary. The detailed instructions in the template page you cite says "orig-date: Original publication date or year; displays in square brackets after the date (or year). For clarity, please supply specifics. For example: |orig-date=First published 1859 or |orig-date=Composed 1904. As |orig-date= does not support automatic date formatting" Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Undead Shambles: Welcome to the Teahouse! When I create a reference using {{cite web}}, I use the "Updated" date in the |date= field, and don't populate the |orig-date= field. (I would use |orig-year= with {{cite book}}.) There was a similar conversation at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dates in citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with Kiwi Camara article

Hello! Sarah here, attempting to update and improve the Kiwi Camara article on behalf of DISCO. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and shared a link to a draft article at Talk:Kiwi Camara, but so far I have not received any feedback from other editors even after posting similar requests for help at WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, and WikiProject United States. I've outlined problems with the current article, which is mostly a Background section with two Controversy sections related to the same incident. I've also worked to draft a more well-rounded biography which relies on news organizations over student newspapers. Is someone here able to review the concerns I've identified alongside the draft, then update the live article appropriately? Thanks in advance! Sarah DISCO (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Draft scored 69.5% on earwig Justiyaya 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sarah DISCO: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some editors shy away from reviewing such a large change. You may be more successful attempting to make a series of smaller changes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sarah DISCO: Also, I suggest adding the {{Request edit}} template at the top of the section on the talk page to get more attention from other editors. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty in creating an article

I wanted to create an article for American actress Kathleen Mulqueen, but it was created as a draft by a user who is already blocked, can you turn that draft into an article if you can? Or can I intervene in this case, is there any problem to create it? Topsiii (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Topsiii: you can edit Draft:Kathleen Mulqueen yourself to bring it up to a sufficient standard to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I create a 2nd article? My sandbox has no blank space.

Sandbox seems full How do I write a second article when my sandbox seems to be filled with a redirect message related to my first article (which I wrote years ago.) Link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Busypencil/sandbox&redirect=no Busypencil (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Busypencil Just replace the text with {{User sandbox}}, as I have done for you. ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Qwerfjkl

Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Many thanks Thanks to Qwerfjkl for promptly answering my question. I'll probably be back with more!

—Busypencil Busypencil (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to that, you don't nessesarely need to develop new articles under User:Busypencil/sandbox, you could also do it as User:Busypencil/sandbox 2, User:Busypencil/future article name here etc. I am going to insert a form below:

Note that the input box above does not actually create a page until you hit save for the first time. Note that you can edit this particular section by clicking the edit link in the section header. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

adding a credit

Hello, I am trying to add my name to the supporting cast list for HALSTON. I made the edits while I was logged in but I still don't see the changes. Am I missing something? Dinosaurjunior (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Dinosaurjunior. Are you talking about those May 21 edits to Halston (miniseries)? They were reverted by Kingsif; you can leave a message on their talk page and discuss those edits. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Need guidance on page "Mahalingam Thangavelu"

Hello, I have edited the page "Mahalingam Thangavelu" including adding in line references. Could you please provide guidance on what additional details or formatting is required to make it acceptable.

Thank you. Mukherjee27 Mukherjee27 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mahalingam Thangavelu

@Mukherjee27: If you have any conflict of interest, you must disclose it on your user page. You can use {{UserboxCOI|Draft:Mahalingam Thangavelu}} for this. Please change every instance of "Dr. Thangavelu" to "Thangavelu" per WP:SURNAME. Please remove the external links from the body of the article per WP:ELPOINTS. Please move the references to be after (not before) the punctuation, per MOS:CITEPUNCT. Please provide references that state "he was keenly aware", "made significant contributions" and "contributed significantly", or reword the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

list of oldest living major league ballplayers. Charlie Gorin listed as 25th oldest living player died on 2/21/2021 in Austin Texas. Reported by Dignity Memorial and Baseball Almanac.

 2603:7000:7702:10FA:E5E5:68A2:BED2:622E (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? There is no Charlie Gorin listed at List of the oldest living Major League Baseball players, which in any case is not a list of living players, but the longest lived. (Most of them are deceased.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article looks to be List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (very similar name, but different criteria). Needs someone to investigate claim of his death, as his article (Charlie Gorin) still has him as alive. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorin is indeed dead. I've edited his article to reflect this and removed him from the list. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article rejected

Hello, I've created a draft article Draft:Prasanth Nair few minutes ago. A user rejected it after my submission and stated that the article is deleted via AfD before and I'm a sock. Prasanth Nair is an Indian actor and have provided evidence. Anyone please help. 27.59.238.19 (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The best advice we can give you is to stop repeatedly recreating that article. Yes, he is an actor. That doesn't mean a Wikipedia article is appropriate. Please see WP:NACTOR.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, rejected. There is a history of an article about this person being created and deleted several times. And sock activity. After your draft was rejected, you removed the rejection tag and applied to AfC. That was reverted. Removing rejections (and declines) are not allowed. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD, I too would have rejected the article that was a good call. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Twelve Forever - Tweet and Tumblr Citing

I used an internet archive called Archive.org, also known as Wayback Machine, to retrieve screenshots of a person's Tweets and Tumblr posts and it was dubbed unreliable, whereas in the same post, an editor used them elsewhere and it was dubbed reliable. I was using it to show what the creator posted that inadvertently caused the cancellation of their TV series, while they used a tweet to prove the show has no further seasons coming. Could someone explain what I'm doing wrong?

My citings would be these, and it would fall into pedophilic behavior from a children's show creator:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190831184129/https://juliavickerman.tumblr.com/post/529260500/nothing-gets-me-more-worked-up-than-a-bear-affair

https://web.archive.org/web/20100801061227/http://twitter.com:80/juliavickerman

http://web.archive.org/web/20100406171955/https://twitter.com/juliavickerman

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901040822/https:/twitter.com/juliavickerman/status/27854166419?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901041514/https://twitter.com/juliavickerman/status/9695589665?s=20

https://web.archive.org/web/20190901041331if_/https://twitter.com/juliavickerman/status/12487443815?s=20

And there is a lot more, but it seemed like that would suffice.

I am not 100% absolute if this was where they wanted me to ask, but they sent me this while the conversation was being discussed, so I presumed this is where they want me to ask maybe. FairyKingCorn (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that this is already under discussion on your user talk page and at WP:BLPN, so it doesn't need discussing here as well. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

{{msg:Template}}

What does {{msg:}} do? Example:{{msg:example}} produces

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

―Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It inserts a template, same as {{Example}}. See Wikipedia:Template namespace § History. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan Would there be any point in mass-removing msg:? ―Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "msg:" prefix does not affect the templates in any way, so mass-removing it would fall under Wikipedia:Bot policy § Cosmetic changes. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Setting up a new entry for Institute of Event Management and linking all items on 'events'

I would like advice on how to establish an entry for the Institute of Event Management and all its activities and developments - also to link all entries on Wikipedia which reference the business of events Jilly Ashton-Bridge (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this "the Institute of Event Management" next door to the Idle Working Mens Club in Idle, West Yorkshire, or another one? Do you work for them? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jilly Ashton-Bridge, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid "an entry for ... and all its activities and developments" is not something which Wikipedia would hold. Wikipedia is not social media or a directory, but an encyclopaedia. If the Institute meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that enough has been published about it wholly independently of it, then Wikipedia could have an article about it. This article would not belong to the Institute, would not be under its control, would not necessarily contain what the Institute would ike it to contain, and should be almost 100% based what those wholly independent sources had published about the Institute, not on what the Institute says or wants to say.

If, having read the above, you think that it does meet the criteria, then you are welcome to try the (extremely difficult) task of writing a draft article about it: start by reading WP:your first article. If you have any connection to the Institute yourself, you need to read about editing with a conflict of interest first, and possibly also about paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I navigated away from my sandbox page, lost my draft and can't figure out how to retype it

I'm writing an article, my second after a hiatus of several years. I navigated away from my sandbox page after writing a lengthy draft. (Fortunately, I have a copy of it in Word.) I did NOT press "publish changes" because the draft wasn't ready for editorial review. I need to add many references and links.

My questions:

1) How can I get another blank form on my Sandbox page to copy my draft back in? My Sandbox page currently has no blank form for a new article. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Busypencil/sandbox

2) What's the RIGHT WAY to navigate away from an article draft WITHOUT submitting it for review. This is going to be a multi-day process, and I don't want to see my draft disappear again?

Thanks in advance, Busypencil Busypencil (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You, along with with many others, have been confused by the decision of WMF to change the wording of the "Save changes" button to "Publish changes". This button does not publish to mainspace, or even send it to review, but merely saves the page so that you can continue to work on it. It's only when you use the blue "Submit" button that the draft is submitted for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Busypencil: Common misconception; in the edit window, the blue "Publish changes" button at the bottom really means "save". On mainspace articles, the changes that are saved are instantly public (with exceptions), so when editing the mainspace you should only hit "Publish changes" when you're sure about those changes. That is not the case for drafts and userspace sandboxes; in fact, nobody cares if you take one edit or a thousand to arrive at a complete draft. You also have {{User sandbox}} at the top of your of your sandbox. The "Submit your draft for review!" button there is actually different: it puts a template at the bottom of your draft that notifies Articles for Creation reviewers that this draft is ready for review. So to summarize, when you're working on a draft, hit the "Publish changes" button to save your work, even if it's half done; when you're done, hit the "Submit your draft for review!" for review. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it was changed from "Save page" because people complained that their edits were visible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Make MILC page?

Hi, I was wondering if I could move the text from the section Minor League Cricket to it's own seperate page as the season does start July 31st of 2021 and more information will come from more reliable sources as the season approaches. Minor League Cricket is currently a redirect to Major League Cricket. Please let me know soon.

(EDIT) Please note this does follow under WP:NSEASONS

Cheers, WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper: Welcome to the Teahouse! Two of your options could be to ask on Talk:Major League Cricket and/or start Draft:Minor League Cricket. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Drop down list problems

I don't know why this kind of list shows by defect on the empty values the words 'Lorem' and specially in the second value the word 'borem'. In fact, I searched help in this template → Template:Drop down list/doc but I see the same problem on the examples.

How can I change that? Thanks a lot Mauriziok (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mauriziok The reason is because the list is hard-coded to display Lorem or Borem by default if the value are not given, the workaround is to add declare other value as blank (taking the first example, the code should be of such {{Drop down list|Name=Examples|Value1=One|Value2=Two|Value3=Three|Value4=Four|Value5=|Value6=|Value7=|Value8=}}). Not sure, what you are using that template for as I don't see the use case for it. Hopefully, that answered your question. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll Oh, thank you so much for the info. That helps me. --Mauriziok (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mauriziok Welcome. Another thing I would like to point out, when you are replying to another editor in the future, please don't copy their signature like you did when you replied to me. If you would like to notify the editor you are replying to, use the Template:Reply template (see the link for further instructions) or simply use @[[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] (example @[[User:Mauriziok|Mauriziok]]). Thanks you and happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll All right, I get it. Thanks. --Mauriziok (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mauriziok: May I ask what you're using that template for? This is not a commonly-used one; in fact, it is not used in any mainspace article at all. Also, note that article content should not be collapsed by default except for very specific scenarios (MOS:PRECOLLAPSE). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm in a rut

So i'm going to add a sentence on the Action 52 page stating that even if Ooze was beatable, the contest would have likely been immposible to win, due to the fact that the "personal code" provided is the same across all copies of the game. Naturally, i'll need to back this up with a source. The problem is, the only source I can find is this one: https://tcrf.net/Action_52_(NES) (You can scroll down the page to see the bit mentioning the contest).

As TCRF is a wiki and therefore user-generated content, its not reliable, but i can't find any other source for this claim.

What should I do? --185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot find a reliable source for the claim, it cannot be on Wikipedia. There is nothing else that you can do about that. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Opera fan help with COI

Hi all, I am an opera fan and want to support artists / opera houses by keeping their wikis up to date. I have registered a conflict of interest as I know people in the business, I write in a very neutral way and it's mostly historic updates. I would appreciate any tips / words of wisdom on how to manage COI when you're in a very connected industry / fanbase. I am a trained researcher, who is now worried all my edits / content won't be approved.

Thank you for any tips Marblewatcher57 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Marblewatcher57 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I might suggest that you state what your COI is on your user page (User:Marblewatcher57). You may wish to review this plain language explanation of COI for some guidance. If you wish to edit an existing article, you should make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. If you wish to create new articles, you should use Articles for Creation. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about topics. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Marblewatcher57 I'll add that people do not have "wikis". A wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is one example. Individual pages here that have encyclopedia content are called articles. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You might also want to read Neutral Point of View or 5 Pillars for some fundamental principles Wikipedia operates under, but it's good that you're aware of this COI possibly causing an issue and we do welcome experts and people with industry knowledge contributing. Edits don't need to be "approved"—they generally go live immediately—though volunteers try to keep an eye on changes and undo any that make an article worse. To double down on what 331dot says, the key point is sources, sources, sources: we've all been in situations where we know something is true but can't find a source for it, and in that case you just can't write it in an article.

If you're worried about a particular article or edit, people with COIs can still make uncontroversial/housekeeping edits directly, but you can describe exactly what change you want to make on the talk page of an article in a new section that begins with the code {{Request edit}} and someone without a COI will come along and see if they want to make the change or take issue with it. Where everyone's threshold for this is will vary—I'd say you don't (necessarily) have a COI if you met someone in passing or know someone who knows someone who knows them, but if their career success/failure matters to you or your friends then you do have a COI. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll make a different point from 331dot about that same phrase, Marblewatcher57: Nobody has a Wikipedia article: a Wikipedia article does not belong to its subject, and is not (except incidentally) for its subject's benefit. If you want to help Wikipedia by improving articles about opera, that's great; but if your purpose is to support the subjects of those articles, that is a COI. Note, for example, that verifiability is far more important to Wikipedia than either completeness or being up to date. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair points, I guess I need to be more specific by the term "support" ie. the edits are updates based on current events / what has happened recently that I see is missing. I use citations on my edits as it's all documented updates like new shows etc. Maybe I am ultra paranoid. Thank you for the reading suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marblewatcher57 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marblewatcher57: Lest you feel the answers you've received might be a little negative, please may I suggest one particular area in which your personal knowledge and contact could be immensely helpful? It matters not one jot whether you are best buddies with anyone, but for those notable operatic figures for whom there is already an article about them, or for anyone likely to someday have one, why not approach your contacts to take a photo of them that you can then add to a current or future article. So often we struggle to get good images of famous - or not so famous people- and having them already available on Wikimedia Commons (our image hosting project), can be terribly helpful. Any further help or advice you need: just ask. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @NickMoyes that is a good suggestion, I have noticed this is a common issue on a lot of pages. Will be easier when the pandemic isn't raging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marblewatcher57 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Marblewatcher57: Welcome! A few random comments:

1. Please sign your posts on talk pages (such as the Teahouse) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them, this generates a signature block with your username and the time of posting
2. Do not mark your edits as "minor" if you are not sure - "minor" means "only changes formatting, no added content", so adding a reference is not minor
3. Regarding Draft:Matthew Toogood: creating a new article is very hard, and while you did a better job that most newbies, I still think it is not going to be accepted
   1. You should check if the subject meets Wikipedia's "notability" criteria before working on the draft. The criteria are at WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG and they are intentionally quite hard to meet. Your most likely chance is to find multiple independent reviews of their work in magazines such as Gramophone (mainstream press would be good too but that is where I would search first). (The reviews do not have to be good, we have an article about Florence Foster Jenkins; they have to show that someone "took notice" of the subject's work.) If such reviews do not exist, it is irrelevant that they have collaborated with famous people - notability is not inherited.
   2. If you have sources that support notability, you should add some dates in your draft, and use the {{ill}} template for your links to German-wikipedia pages (right now the links will silently take the reader to a German page).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing Copyright Information on an Image

I forgot to enter copyright information on a image file that I uploaded in my sandbox. A bot then sent me a message that the file would be deleted unless the proper copyright information was entered. I tried to edit the information, but I do not see how to change the copyright information on the uploaded image: FarrisandJuliaBryantHorse.jpeg. How do I edit the copyright information? Thank you.Attu43 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Attu43 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Attu43: The original photograph came from Florida State library, which you correctly cited.[5] Their website says it is a public domain image. As such, it would be much better to upload the file to Wikipedia Commons using their Wizard commons:Special:UploadWizard and following the instructions so you can include the source and its license. The reason Commons is a better place for the picture is because it can then be used in any article in any language. Uploading to English Wikipedia is usually reserved for "fair use" images only intended to be used here. Once you have placed the image in Commons, you can allow the bots to delete the one you previously uploaded. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A similar file has been uploaded here on Commons, so that's how your addition should look: but try to give it a less cumbersome name! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

How to gain Corporate notability

 111.98.81.161 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It is all about the quality of the coverage of the corporation in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: This is about Draft:King Street Sounds, created by JSJS 22. I suggest editors continue to look at articles about other recording studios to see what types of references conveyed notability. As mentioned in one of the refs, King Street Sounds has been in existence for 25 years. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Renaming draft

Hi, how can I change the name of my draft? Also is that specific characters like dot(.) allowed in draft name?

Thanks in advance Kamesh Aravind P (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Kamesh Aravind P You may leave a note for reviewers on the draft talk page; if the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the correct title. I know dots are allowed in article titles. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Kamesh Aravind P, if this is Draft:Rubaru Mister India, you'd better concentrate on specifying reliable, independent, published sources for everything that it says. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Article upload

Hello, this question is in related to this piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naza_Alakija. I thought I uploaded the article but I never heard back about it, and when I checked just now it still says 'draft'. Does that mean it is still undergoing the review process? Or has it not been submitted/published? Thank you Shepherdonhydra (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it for review. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware- how can I submit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheperdonhydra (talk • contribs)

I've added a header that gives you a button to submit, Shepherdonhydra. --ColinFine (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepherdonhydra (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

While you're waiting for review, one of the things which you ought to do is to remove the misplaced external links from the body text. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Grateful for your help, have done so, thank you David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheperdonhydra (talk • contribs)

Review my drafts

I made 3 drafts that are waiting for review (List of Atlas LV3A launches, List of Atlas LV3B launches, and List of Atlas LV3C launches). Can someone review them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in due time. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are not necessarily also reviewers, and even if are, asking here does not accelerate a review. David notMD (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Article getting rejected for unreliable sources/no sources

Hi all. I recently submitted an article for a local amateur senior football club in Ireland - Newtown Rangers AFC. It was rejected this morning based off not having reliable/or any sources to back up the club's honours list. The issue is the online archive of such leagues and titles for Irish football is shockingly poor. All I have is the 60th Anniversary annual which has a complete list of all the club's honours since 1957 - 2017. It's printed and published locally but not online. I don't know what to do now. I can take a picture etc of the annual but I am unable to find an online location of it. It's really disappointing as this club is over 60 years old, has a great history but now I can't disclose the actual awards it has won. Any suggestions at all? Tommymul (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry the article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Newtown_Rangers_AFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommymul (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that a cited source must be available online. But will you be able to demonstrate that the team satisfies WP:GNG? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To amplify what Hoary said, Tommymul, sources do not have to be online, but they have to be reliably published, and to establish notability, they have to be independent. The club's yearbook is a self-published source, so while it can be used to establish certain kinds of uncontroversial information about the club, it cannot contribute to establish that it is notable. If you cannot find sources (on or offline) that meet the criteria for notability, then no article will be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and help. It's fair RE the yearbook - so I have removed all honours list from the page until it becomes available online via an independent source and resubmitted. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommymul (talk • contribs)

I think you've misunderstood, Tommymul. Sources don't need to be online, and while the yearbook isn't independent and therefore doesn't contribute to demonstrating notability, you can still use it as a source for uncontroversial information. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I get my page approved

 AJTANDY (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AJTANDY. Presuming you're referring to User:AJTANDY/sandbox/The Truth About BDS, there's likely no way to get it approved for publication as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what you've created isn't an encyclopedia article. You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

AJTANDY An article on BDS already exists: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting old information in a box at the side of the entry

Under the Unitarian Meeting House, Ipswich,there is a section (in the box to the right) entitled Clergy.I need to delete this section as we currently have no Minister and the one named on the page - Lewis Connolly- left over two years ago. I can't find a way to edit anything in the box ...? Tessa Forsdike (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I made the edit for you here. Deor (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tessa Forsdike: Forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Becky Edwards Page

 Courtesy link: Becky Edwards (politician)

Hey! I work on the Becky Edwards for US Senate campaign and I am trying to edit her wikipedia page so her personal information is included. I just want to add her family members and her new website, but you keep removing those changes. I'm just wondering what I have to do in order to have these changes stay up on her page. Thanks! Beataph (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem:

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, WP:COI for short, address the inherent problems that arise when individuals and organizations edit Wikipedia articles about themselves or their products. You have identified yourself as an employee of Becky Edwards, and therefore you must abide by WP:COI in articles about that person, as well as articles that reference that person. What this means, specifically, is as follows:

1. You cannot edit those articles yourself, except to make these non-controversial edits.
2. If you would like content added, removed, or changed in any of those articles, you should make a request to that effect on the article's talk page. There is a template for that specific purpose, here. One or more unconflicted editors will review your proposal. If it is acceptable, the requested changes will be made; if not, they will state their reasons for declining to make the changes. Discussion can then ensue, when necessary.
3. Please post a formal Declaration of interest here, if you plan to continue contributing to articles about your employer, or its products. See this example.
4. If you continue to add content -- particularly promotional material -- to articles in which you have a COI, you will draw the ire of WP administrators, and probably an editing block as well.

That's it. Please take the time to read WP:Welcome to Wikipedia and WP:Five pillars. Armed with that basic information, you will be well prepared to help improve articles in a non-promotional manner, using reliable third-party verifiable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message here. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 17:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation error showing on Mc Donald's history page in the "Timeline" section

Hi, please help to edit/correct this page

In the timeline of Mc Donald's there's this citation error in bold red showing up as follows:

"Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)"

Also the 2000 timeline is not showing properly on the specific "Mc Donald's history" main page.

Although the html text is all there in edit mode. The "2002" event is not appearing completely i.e initial portion of the description is missing on the Front end page.

Please help to correct this error.

Thanks

 Ashwini Chhetri (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: History of McDonald's. The citation for the first in Estonia is completely misformatted. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: McDonald's Problem has been solved. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Updating Medical References / Cochrane

I have been updating medical references on Wikipedia for over a year now, primarily updating Cochrane references in support of their Wikipedia project to update articles to keep them current. Recently an editor pointed out to me that one of my updated references was "embargoed" and not fully available until sometime in 2022. In doing a bit more research on this I found that this was common and full articles were often not available until later. The updated articles abstract and summary are available, just not the full text. I have probably done hundred's of these types of updates, most (not all) are very strait forward and relatively simple but I don't want to be doing something incorrectly or creating an issue that someone will need to fix later. The abstract summaries on PubMed fully support the reference updates but the full text is not always available. What would a senior editor recommend in this situation? I've provided a link to a PubMed abstract that would update a related Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassemia)

BDD user BDD user (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I think it is a PubMed typo!!! (Or a Cochrane or PubMed programming error?) Thru the PMID number I got the the abstract - describing publication as April 4, 2021, with access to the full article (for a price). The embargo date shown as April 4, 2022. I cannot believe that Cochrane releases abstracts a year before access. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As an attempt at a check, I searched PubMed on "Cochrane Database Syst Rev"[jour]. None of the ones in the first 20 that I looked at, i.e., the most recent, had an embargo date. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To "Hydrogenation" ref Kevin Sullivan page

RE: Kevin Sullivan (Wrestler)

I am working as the agent of Kevin Sullivan and his wife to try and correct mistaken and misleading information on his Wiki page that you continuously revert. I may not know all the details of correction at this point but your "factual" information is incorrect. I have corrected it, yet, again. We are also working with attorney Steve New to have you blocked from making further edits on his page. Please provide a legitimate email address and stand by for his correspondence.

Dave Mitchell <redacted> Davem91933 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Davem91933: Let's start with you edited Kevin Sullivan (wrestler) on June 14 and your changes were reverted on June 14, not because Hydrogenation was acting in the belief that you were adding false information, but ONLY because you did not provide a reference or references verifying your changes. Today (July 8) you have again changed content about his personal life without providing verification. I expect someone will revert that unless you can quickly provide a reference that, for example, confirms he was never married to Debra Stokes before Nancy and Samantha Conner (and L.A. Taylor?) after Nancy. As to your legal threats, that will only result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have pointed the editor to WP:COI, and more specifically to WP:PAID. Meters (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Hydrogenation had given rationale for the June 14 actions on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

For why we do not accept claims without an ironclad third-party source, see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. We insist on sources for biographical claims for a good reason. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

3 (three) Questions about Drafts and NPA

The 3 (three) questions I am asking are: 1 (one). I know Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, however, do drafts apply to this statement? As they are not full published articles I am unsure about the state of this. The second question I am asking is regarding whether or not draft articles can be moved to a different name (not namespace). I, again, am unsure about this due to their unpublished status.

2. Recently, an editor reverted my edit (with good reason, I am not complaining about this), however, in their edit summary, they said about how I (not my edit) broke a template. I am wondering where or not this is a WP:NPA violation, as my edit breaking a template wouldn't've been a personal attack as defined by NPA. If this is a NPA violation, please tell me whether or not I should warn this user or take any other actions. Diff can be found at Tesco close to the top.

Thanks. WhenYouWiki (A person) (Talk) 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhenYouWiki: Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, anyone may edit a draft. Drafts may be moved to mainspace to become an article when they are ready. Where else are you thinking it would be good to move it to? An edit summary explaining that your edit broke a template is not a personal attack. Hope this helps. If you want to learn about how to edit Wikipedia, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you, I have realized that the draft I was planning on moving (not mine) was inactive and extrememly small.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYouWiki (talk • contribs)

Unable to edit korean wiki

The Korean Wiki is unable to be edited 71.173.64.106 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We are unable to help you with things going on at the Korean Wikipedia. Perhaps you tried editing a page that is locked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Help determine if this is vandalism?

I believe this edit is vandalism; it removed the notes and references list without a reason, and some of the templates at the bottom. But it seems very specific, changing "Disney" to "Warner Bros" in a number of cases. Is it possible Warner Bros bought the film or something? A few searches aren't revealing anything.

If it is vandalism, is it safe for me to assume so in the future and revert?

Looks like the IP has several similar edits from today, as well. paul2520 💬 01:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul2520: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for watching out for odd edits. You may revert the edit, if the change is not correct or supported by sources. See WP:Vandalism for how the term is used on Wikipedia. If the change is made in good faith, and not intentionally malicious, then it is not vandalism. RudolfRed (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, RudolfRed! A second set of eyes is helpful. = paul2520 💬 01:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Pages with duplicate reference names

Major errors

What happened to cause this list to expand from around 300 pages to over 2000? Quebec99 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Quebec99, I looked at several of the pages, which all were places in the Philippines... I wonder if one of the templates they all use was changed? = paul2520 💬 01:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Quebec99, articles about Philippine places (much of the problem) are creating references using {{PH census}}. This creates a named reference and should only be used once in an article with the name being used the second and following uses. However this isn't well documented in the template, so it is being used over and over again. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC) StarryGrandma (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Badges and Barnstars

Hi there! So, today I am here with my questions:

• How do users get their Barnstars or Badges which they are entitled to show?
• Do someone award us them or we need to earn them?
• Is there any specific number of pages that I need to create or number of edits I need to do to earn them?
• Because, already made 2 Pages, just wondering when I will earn them

Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jocelin Andrea. You can get some badges by completing The Wikipedia Adventure, and those are beginner's awards. Barnstars are completely informal and unofficial recognitions given by one editor to another. There are no formal requirements. Service awards are given to an editor by that editor themself, and are based on edit count and time of service. The only expectation is that editors will be honest. The highest honor is being the primary author of a Good article or especially, a Featured article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability of an author

I would like to write an article about a Victorian English man who worked for a notable company (Longmans; there is a Wikipedia article about them). He became a shareholder, traveled the world, and wrote many educational books (one sold over 2 million copies). I can reference a few books, essays, theses and newspapers which mention him. Is this enough to make him notable? Ruthruss (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A reasonable question, but the answer is no. These educational books that he wrote: what was written by others about them? Or what was written by others about him? That could amount to something, and if it did, he'd be notable. (And back then it was "Longmans, Green", or some variation on this, no?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ruthruss. When a reliable source "mentions" someone, that does not make the person notable. We call that a "passing mention", and that is not a good term on Wikipedia. What is required is significant coverage in several reliable sources. We want coverage that discusses this person as a real person, instead of a spokesperson. Sources that discuss things like their childhood, education, previous accomplishments, personal characteristics and future plans. Those are the type of sources that make it possible to write an encyclopedic biography. For an author in particular, detailed reviews of their works are also useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Quality of my draft article

Hi guys, DRAFT:Rubaru Mr. India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rubaru_Mr._India

I have created a new article for a famous Indian Pageant. Can you check & tell me suggestions please??

Thanks in advance. Kamesh Aravind P (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Just one note - inline citations should not be put in section headers. Ruslik_Zero 07:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Publish an article

I want to publish profile of an actor. how do i prepare and publish in wikipedia Nesh16 (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nesh16 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have any "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles. Please review the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. If you believe that this actor meets that definition, and you have gathered at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person(coverage that goes beyond merely mentioning them), an article may be possible.

Please be advised that successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. I would advise you to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will also help with this. Both of these things will greatly increase your chances of success.

However, if you still wish to attempt to create a new article now, please read Your First Article and then go to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor, who will give you feedback on it before it is formally part of the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more harshly. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wanted you to check a few sources.

Hello! I wanted you to check these few sources and let me know that whether I could add them to Avneet Kaur's wikipedia page - media section. Kindly do tell me which ones from these 4 I could add which ones I can't (if any). Thank you. Manalijain (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Manalijain, you may add any or all of them. But only the third one does anything to help establish that the subject is notable, the others just list her name. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will soon add the third one. And will look forward for other references' suggestion too. Thank you! Manalijain (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Submitted an article for the first time and it was rejected

Submitted my first page and it got rejected because there was no references added for the page

Added references and submitted again and it's been 2 days I haven't got any notifications about the status of the page

I have few questions, please help me with answers for these

1] Usually how many days it takes for approval of page

2] Do we get any notification once the page is approved

3] Where can we see the page which we created.

Thank you Thip123 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jyothi Ganesh Unsourced article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No sources, no article, no debate. The article has not been resubmitted, and would be summarily declined (or, more likely, rejected) if it were. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor who reverted your removal of the decline notice also removed the resubmittal. You are free to resubmit, but in my opinion it will be declined again, as much of the content is without references (Development projects). Once submitted a draft joins a backlog of thousands of drafts. Not a queue, so can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before reviewed again. You will get a notice if accepted or denied (or rejected). The draft is at Draft:Jyothi Ganesh. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Publish A Page

Hi. I've been trying to publish this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Datuk_Kamilia_binti_Dato%27_Ibrahim?action=edit . However, it was declined many times. Please advise on how I can solve this? Thank you. Yayasanwibaprima (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

More reliable sources to cite the unsourced claims in the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Yayasanwibaprima, I wonder what she has done. The stub currently says (without references to make it credible) that she has held this position and that, but it says nothing about how she was able to use each position to improve anything. (Such information too would have to be referenced, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been working on this a long time. Started in December 2019, then by May 2020 had reached 37,000 bytes and 49 refs. After declines, your massive cuts brought it to 2000 bytes and one ref. Perhaps there is some of the cut material that can be restored - with refs - to find the right level of detail. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How to Move an Article Out of Sandbox for Review and Approval

Hello,

I just finished the article whose short description is "Vietnamese American Aerospace Engineer." It is currently situated at PhoCoHaNoi/Sandbox. Please kindly help me on how to move it out of the sandbox for review and approval, so that it could be part of the knowledge base in Wikipedia.

Thanks so much. PhoCoHaNoi (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PhoCoHaNoi. Your draft must be rewritten to comply with the Neutral point of view. It contains promotional language that praises the subject. You need to write in a "just the facts" tone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:PhoCoHaNoi/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved to a more appropriate title, Draft:Khanh D. Pham. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@PhoCoHaNoi: Welcome to the Teahouse! Every award and paragraph should have a reference. External links should not be included in the body of the article per WP:ELPOINTS. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references per WP:CIRCULAR. Some references are showing errors because the date formats such as "03/10/2020" are ambiguous: the reader won't know if it is March 10 or 3 October. There are some other errors in the References section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Desiderio Sanzi

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

hello everyone, I am improving this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Desiderio_Sanzi

i was told that there were not enough citations, i easily found more thanks to google and included them.

there are citations from many different sources, many of them institutional... do you think it's ok? can i try to submit the request to update it from draft status? Nscent (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nscent: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are still a few items that do not have references. The photo can be moved to the top of the draft. Film titles should be italicized per WP:ITALICS. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC):@GoingBatty:Nscent (talk)

hello, here I am again! I studied and entered the multicitations, so I avoided repeating the same quotes in the references, and they are sorted with "a b c" I inserted more quotes, where they were missing, moved the picture to the top of the page and put in italics the list of movies and solo shows! do you think it's ok now? can i try to request the upgrade from the current draft status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscent (talk • contribs)

Citation for Florida Gulf Coast University

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I recently improved a citation because it has updated an access date "December 15, 2020", so it is correct, and also instead of incorrect access date: "December 15, 2021" under cite section 46. Here is the link what we shown on the FGCU article therefore for this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_Gulf_Coast_University&diff=prev&oldid=1032694884.

We updated this citation for that these references like sources, and added the date of December 4, 2020, as in a Florida Gulf Coast University section at Rankings. --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Diegopeter2013. An access date of "December 15, 2021" is clearly incorrect, since it is possible that a giant meteor could destroy the Earth before then. Or something else. The correct access date for a reference is the most recent date that a human editor (not a bot) actually read the reference to verify the content in the Wikipedia article. So, if you read the source today, then the access date should be today.

Also, be careful about writing as "we". Wikipedia accounts are for one person only, and that individual person is responsible for every individual edit, and for account security. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 thank you. Here is what over the Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) article that has located to its section: References. See the Florida Gulf Coast University article and find the cite section 46. Happy day at Wikipedia! --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Space jam

Watching the tailer for Space Jam: A New Legacy it seams to be more animated then first thought does anyone know if it is animted or live action animated the definition use on the highest grossing animated films page

An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 per cent of the picture's running time.

—Rule Seven – Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award: I. Definition

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Fanoflionking! The Teahouse is a place for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment instead. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How to query probably inaccurate info?

I often see info on Wikipedia which I am certain is inaccurate, but don’t have the exact knowledge to correct it myself. Is there a way of bringing the errors to the attention of others and suggesting what is wrong without actually making the changes myself? Robertpstubbs (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Robertpstubbs Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All articles have an associated talk page, which is for discussion about the content of the article. For example, Talk:Joe Biden is for discussing any issues with the article on Joe Biden. Feel free to post any concerns about an article on its talk page, along with any sources you have to support your assertions; just saying something is wrong will not likely lead to action, we will need to know why it is wrong. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robertpstubbs you can also check the references for that info, sometimes the references don't actually support the info, either because people have read things wrong or misunderstand things; Like the lad I once met here who thought that cylinders and horsepower were two ways to measure the same aspect of an engine's power. If the references confirm what you thought, feel free to correct the article. If the info isn't referenced, and you don't have access to reference material then {{fact}} generates our famous [citation needed]. If the info is unsourced and negative, feel free to remove it, and just put in your edit summary "remove unsourced info". ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Robertpstubbs you can insert a {{dubious}} tag at the location of the questionable content. If the content does reference a source but the source does not actually support the content you can place a {{failed verification}} tag directly after the reference markup. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Drafting a page, now it's deleted?

Hi, I was working on an article draft for a couple days, and when I came back to finish putting in the references, it was gone. There's no log that it was deleted, and I can't imagine why. The name of the page was going to be Developing Radio Partners, and I was writing it in my sandbox. I was working on it the day it was deleted, so I don't think it was because of inactivity. I can't find it anywhere. Noahpdoty (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Noahpdoty Your account has no contributions other than this post. An article called "Developing Radio Partners" has never existed, nor has a draft by that name. Would it be under another name? Perhaps you created a draft while logged out? 331dot (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how that would have happened, it saved from one day to the next. Last night I made another draft in a separate location. I'm super new to writing these, do I need to publish to have it save? I thought that was for when I was finished. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahpdoty (talk • contribs)

Noahpdoty Okay, I think I get it. "Publish Changes" should be understood to simply mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say save changes, but it was changed for legal reasons, to emphasize that anything you save is potentially visible to the public(even if not an actual article). Unfortunately, if you closed out your browser without clicking Publish Changes, what you wrote was lost, I regret to say. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Noahpdoty, Is this it? - User:Noahpdoty/sandbox/Developing Radio Partners so far it's just a few section headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67 They created that since they started this discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Dodger, I wish that was it. I just started that one and quickly published when I realized what had happened with the first draft. I get it now, so thank you both very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahpdoty (talk • contribs)

Noahpdoty FYI - Your Sandbox is a draft. Converting it to a draft is a draft. If editors look at the history of your contributions, they can view those drafts, but drafts are not found by searches within or outside Wikipedia. There is a process to submit drafts to a review process called Articles for Creation. Also see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is being a country’s first reality star and making a new genre not notability?

My subject Ramiz King is growing each day on news but due to lack of Afghan media there was less independent articles but his show realessing soon so new press will be added. But they are saying he isn’t notable at all when I think he is and another editor if you review the draft in the intially review said he is possibly notable. Why are all the editors not on the same page? --Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Positiveilluminati, from what you say, maybe he's notable, maybe he isn't, but either way you haven't proved it by citing suitable sources. You say he is "growing each day on news". If that's true, wait a few weeks until it's easy to find news sources that establish him as notable, and then write a draft, basing it on what those sources say. Maproom (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay fair enough I should wait longer but his notability should not be questioned multiple times especially when one editors says he is and other no. He has google panel as well but I suppose I should wait till his show release. Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Positiveilluminati Having a Google panel is not significant and is not an indicator of notability. Panels are just ways of formatting information found in search results. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m just mentioning that he has been searched heaps and also just voicing that if his costars can get a article, being a reality tv participant like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseer_Ali why not him? Why is it being said reality that participants aren’t notable or in the guidelines?? Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Positiveilluminati Reality show participants are not specifically barred from meriting an article, but are also not specifically permitted. This means that just being a participant is insufficient and you need to demonstrate that the person meets the more general notable person definition. If you feel that participation in a reality show should automatically merit such people articles, you are free to propose that. I don't think it would succeed, but you can try. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please check the changes and deletion requests on the Ramiz king one made by someone else I think it’s not fair. Positiveilluminati (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Was there a recent change to not allow highlighting of unreferenced sources?

I have been away from editing for just a few days. Until recently, I had a preference option enabled that highlighted unreferenced CS1/CS2 citations with a purple (or red, I can't recall) message, "Unreferenced CITEID_Acme_xyz" or something. I found this very useful when cleaning up references, moving unreferenced {{cite}}s to "Further reading" sections.

Did something change recently to remove that user preference? Also, how can I stay abreast of such changes? Is there a page or project I can add to my watchlist that will let me know about imminent changes to user prefs?  — sbb (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... Maybe nevermind. After posting this, I just refreshed an article that I knew had unreferenced cites, and lo and behold, the Harv warning was there. Weird.  — sbb (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hiding categories on mobile view

There's just this strange and weird view since few days lol. I just wanted to enquire if there's any way to hide the categories from being displayed in the mobile view? Thanks ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi Considering no replies, likely no one knows, probably means the answer is no. You could try WP:VPT. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I recently saw this somewhere but I forget where, so thought asking here. If I remember rightly Celestina007 had made a comment there. I'll have a look somewhere around. Thanks for the idea. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi, I believe somewhere here you would find the solution to that. Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, It was helpful on my mobile account. Thanks for that. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hidden in plain sight (idiom)

In Plain Sight is way less popular than say, for example, Friends. I don't understand why it isn't In Plain Sight (American TV series)(to differentiate from the British series of the same name). While IT IS possible that it has more page views than the other pages in the disambiguation (like Community, it is still not the main topic. The main topic is the idiom!!!! --Ireadbooks12 (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ireadbooks12: The idiom, "hidden in plain sight", doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and shouldn't; that's what Wikitionary is for). The primary topic only goes to existing articles with the exact name "in plain sight", which are the four at In Plain Sight (disambiguation). You could make the case that there is no primary topic between the American show and the British one and you could file a requested move for that. However, my first impression is that since the American show had 5 seasons and is therefore slightly more significant than the British one, with just three episodes. If you're curious, the pageview data can be seen at [6] (might wanna tick "logarithmic scale" to see it clearer). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added {{Wiktionary|in plain sight}} to In Plain Sight (disambiguation). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place people are expected to look up a phrase like "in plain sight". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Specific steps for disclosing COI

Hello! This is my first Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sara_Brennen/sandbox I need to disclose COI as a connected contributor. How specifically do I do this? I've looked at the documentation, but I'm not sure of the syntax or placement of the statement. The page is about Dr. Mark Greenberg, who founded the research center where I work. (He is retired so no longer works there.) He meets the notability standards for academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)Purplepixels (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Purplepixels Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are formal templates one can use to declare a COI, a simple statement of it will suffice. You can simply write on your user page, User:Purplepixels, the nature of your COI. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot!Purplepixels (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Purplepixels: You should write it on your user page (User:Purplepixels), not your talk page (User talk:Purplepixels). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty! Is this right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Purplepixels

Remove "Dr. Greenberg satisfies the Wikipedia standards for notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)" as that decision will be in the hands of an experienced reviewer (not a first-time article writer). And it's "article", not "page". David notMD (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Draft space. It would be better to put your COI information on the talk page of the article..... it then stays with the article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft now Draft:Mark T. Greenberg. Contrary to last comment, declaration of COI is OK sited on your User page, especially for a draft, as often no one looks at Talk page of a draft. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

ready to submit my article but no review button. Add 'subst:Submit' but it says "Review Waiting, please be patient"

When I created the article I started it in my sandbox and it was moved. I did not notice until now that the submit for review section and button are not on my draft. When I add 'subst:Submit' I get this:

FYI

 – Removed {{subst:submit}} template here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how to correct or what to do next. Thanks. --Tchula65 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tchula65: Welcome to the Teahouse. Now you wait for a reviewer to look at it and give you feedback. It could take as little as a day or five months, given the current backlog. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

{(ec)@Tchula65: it looks like Theroadislong added the template for you in this edit, which produced the version with the submit button; and the next edit looks like you hitting the button - so now the draft is submitted for review. Was it not your intention to submit the article? You can still keep working on it - it may be a fair long while until it's reviewed, as the notice says. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope - Draft:Returnshp submitted 9 July, Declined 9 July. You can work on this and resubmit, although frankly, I don't see how there will be literature to justify notability if Goldman Sachs has copyrighted "Returnship" (which is what you meant as a title). David notMD (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Materialscientist (User) has deleted my page!

 Sparklestern (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Which page got deleted? RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sparklestern, as an administrator, I do not see that any of your edits have been deleted. If you are talking about Draft:Don't Mess With Me, Mrs. Nagatoro!, it still exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Don't Toy with Me, Miss Nagatoro already exists. Pinging Materialscientist to see if they have any clue as to what page has been deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @Sparklestern and welcome to the Teahouse we are delighted to be of assistance. Generally, when an admin deletes a page it could be of diverse reasons, either an unchallenged prod, due to an AFD, due to the article meeting any WP:CSD. Usually initiating a dialogue with the deleting admin is pertinent. Just to confirm, prior coming here did you interact with Materialscientist? They are friendly and are always willing to be of help. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there an easy-to-use tool to create a Wikipedia article?

Good afternoon.

I would like to create an article for Wikipedia, but I do not have the knowledge to get involved with a complicated coding process, which appears to be required to create a page. Is there an easy-to-use editor where I simply type what I want to include into a pre-formatted template to be published? WilliamSchweitzer (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamSchweitzer: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to add to it. Creating an article is not an easy task. The usual advice is to work on improving existing articles for awhile to gain the skills and experience needed that will help you create an article. You can check out WP:YFA, it will walk you through the steps of creating an article and there is a wizard there to help you create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to "get involved with a complicated coding process", you may also use the visual editor. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There is also the Wikipedia:Article_wizard. I haven't tried it myself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamSchweitzer: I would never attempt anything involving complicated coding, but I have published numerous Wikipedia articles. As RudolfRed has suggested, start out editing existing articles and take it one step at a time. Add additional good references to articles, and after you've done that a few times you've mastered a new skill. Add a new article heading by placing two equal signs in front of and after the heading title – another skill learned.

Once you've mastered a few basic editing tasks concern yourself with choosing a subject that has at least three good reference sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles that cover your subject in depth (not just mentioning the subject in passing). If you write a well-researched article about a notable subject, and the article is accepted for publication, other editors will come along to correct any formatting mistakes you've made. Over time, if you continue writing articles, you'll learn more formatting skills. I am a tech-challenged person, and if I can master Wikipedia's "coding process" anyone able to use a computer can do so. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I was told that the company WikipediaPublishers.com is the only company affiliated to Wikipedia. Is this true?

Hi, I want to make sure that a wikipedia publishing company is affiliated to wikipedia. They write and create your page to wikipedia liking. I just wanted to verify that claim. I was told they do not require any reviews from other sites because they are the only company affiliated with Wikipedia. Could someone help me? wikipediapublisher.com 64.30.191.3 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry to tell you that no commercial publishing companies are affiliated with Wikipedia. None. The site you mention is one of many bloodsucking leeches, who are trying to make money by subverting Wikipedia's purpose, and devaluing the freely donated efforts of its volunteer editors. What they don't tell you is that, if they manage to get an article about you accepted (which they will not unless you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this is non-negotiable), neither you nor they will thereafter control the contents of the article in any way. 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. In particular, Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article wants the article to say. --ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you trust a company whose business they claim is expert writing and editing, but have on their website Writing a Wikipedia article is difficult, however, more than that is the articulation of the article, which is friendly to the readers. This also includes editing of the existing articles which did went live however, their articulation henders to highlight the main features of the company, then you have more money than sense. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine, Personally, I want to applaud them for having the good sense to reach out and ask. Thank you for tracking down that quote, which should stick out as a red flag but it's possible the IP writing to us had not seen it. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:SCAM and Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies for a partial list of such scammers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• I'd like to point out that anything they write with the English facility they display on that site is likely to be reverted, regardless of how well-sourced it is. Some of their ad copy is questionable: They claim their "team" has more that 1,100 edits, which is truly a paltry amount, not enough for even a single editor to really develop a solid grasp of WP policies and norms. I'd also speculate that the reason their "client testimonials" section is empty has less to do with the fact that I had to disable Javascript to even view that page without intrusive pop-ups is because those testimonials were added to WP, and then deleted along with the pages the moment a competent editor stumbled across them.

Don't ever give your money to a site like this. Not only do they engage in a highly shady business practice, the fact remains that the majority of the most experienced and competent editors are all volunteers, meaning that if it's possible to get a page created, it's going to be both easier and better to get it created for free.

And cheaper, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To summarise: WikipediaPublishers.com is not affiliated to Wikipedia. It is dishonest. It is incompetent. It is despised by Wikipedia editors. Well done for thinking to check before paying them! Maproom (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Their home page says "600+ Profile (sic) Created" but only "350+ Happy Customers". GoingBatty (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Their home page also says "our expert writers provide the content which can easily go through the complex wetting process of Wikipedia". I didn't know that Wikipedia articles had to be wet, or even damp. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Can critics' reviews be a part of any wikipedia article?

Can critics' reviews be a part of any personality's wikipedia article ? Manalijain (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The opinions of professional critics writing for reliable publications are appropriate in a Wikipedia article about a creative person, as long as they are properly referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The reference is the key thing. Some blog, for example, will not do it. Carptrash (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Alumni or Alumnae ??

Hello, the category Category:Brearley School alumni should be renamed into Category:Brearley School alumnae (it's an all-girls school). Thank you for your answer, Pierrette13 (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for how to request this. (This would constitute a technical move, as the target is a category redirect.)―Qwerfjkltalk 07:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Pierrette13 ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

How to create references?

In source editing for other Wikipedia pages, I see

and am trying to create a list. Please advise, Thank you.

Also, when I page has been approved i understand it is difficult to get deleted, can I edit the title & other field though & keep the page? I wot in visual editor & source, whichever seems easier. AwesomeAubergine (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AwesomeAubergine. Please read Referencing for beginners, which describes a variety of techniques. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image for BLP

• What are the criteria for choosing infobox image for the biography of a living person? Are the recent ones (pictures) given more preference?
• What should we do if there is conflict of choice with other editors over the image? -ink&fables «talk» 07:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hello @-ink&fables! I don't remember if or where I read it but the first answer to pop into my head was that it should either be the latest image or the image from the peak of their career. For deceased people, it ought to be the most iconic image or an image from the peak of their career. For the living, I reckon, latest is better than old ones from the peak of their career, unless there is an iconic image. Of course, if the latest image is of poor quality, older images of better quality may be preferable. The official guideline is at MOS:LEADIMAGE. The rest of the page may help decide which of the images has the best quality. For example, A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people. In the end, it's an editorial decision to be reached through discussion. You should argue with support from WP:IMAGEPOL, MOS:IMAGE and WP:BLP for your preferred choice, on the article's talk page, and invite other editors to join the discussion. See WP:DR for how you may proceed about resolving any differences regarding content. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The (brief) policy is at WP:BLPIMAGE. The main consideration is that any image to be used must have a valid (i.e. CC) license. "Fair use" images are not allowed for living people. For elderly people it might well be valid to show images from various times in their lives, as with Queen Elizabeth II. In any case, if there is a conflict between editors as to which image is most appropriate, then this should be discussed on the Talk Page of the article, aiming to reach a consensus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding email to Inbox template

Is it possible to add email to Inbox or just website? I have a Infobox:Non-profit & wish to add email of organisation. I can add the email but it is on visible on page after saving changes. Please advise. Thank you. AwesomeAubergine (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AwesomeAubergine. It is almost never appropriate to include an email address in a Wikipedia article. A link to an organization's website is permitted in the infobox and an external link section at the end of the article. Websites almost always include some email functionality. Please read the policy on External links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

In your Sandbox User:AwesomeAubergine/sandbox you appear to be attempting to create an article about a museum that has not yet been built. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Article not visible in search list

Hi, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagheera_(upcoming_film) My article got approved and is in live space. But it's not coming in the search list. Why it so? Will it takes time? In that case how long it will take?

Thanks Kamesh Aravind P (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kamesh Aravind P, if you're talking about search engine results we don't have control over these. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kamesh Aravind P: If you refer to Bagheera (disambiguation) then it's not a search list but a manually edited page. The approving editor forgot to add the new article. I have added it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ::@PrimeHunter: But why we need the article in this list? What's the purpose of adding? Can you teach me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamesh Aravid P (talk • contribs)

@Kamesh Aravind P: When there are a number of different articles that have the same or closely similar title they are listed on a disambiguation page. See WP:DISAMBIGUATION for more information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon page: problems with formatting

I added two new texts on Napoleon's campaigns to the specialty texts lists, but even though it looks correct on the preview it is wonky on the actual web page. How do I fix this? Thanks, Nick NickinOX (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickinOX: I believe you are referring to this edit to Napoleon#Specialty studies. Could you please explain what looks "wonky"? Thanks! 13:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

NickinOX, On my Win10 notebook using Chrome the column break(s) in that section do look very disjointed. I don't think it should be split into columns at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The specialty texts list is in a column format (not my doing) and the column breaks about half way through the list and sits beneath another column listing primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickinOX (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

NickinOX, Would it make sense to put "Speciality studies" in the right column by itself and all the other lists in the left column? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickinOX: I removed the column break from the middle of the "Speciality studies" section. GoingBatty (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty That looks like it did the trick. Thank you all for your help. I was getting very frustrated. (NickinOX (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

I moved the "Historiography and memory" list into the left column. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding using titular films as sources for its own articles.

Regarding the Black Widow Movie, Robert Downey Jr. was stated as appearing in the film, but he did not. My question is, why is a source needed to state that he does not appear in the film? Isn't the film itself the source, considering it is the very subject of the article? Sleptlapps (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sleptlapps, I suggest that a source is needed because, prior to the movie being made, it was publicly announced that he would be in it, but plans subsequently changed. Since people may recall or encounter copies of that old announcement and wonder why the article doesn't mention him, a brief sourced explanation of this is a useful inclusion in the article. One cannot assume that everyone reading the article will have both seen the movie (I haven't, for example), and will accurately remember everything about it (such as the absence of a particular actor). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.120 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for answering. Sleptlapps (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Though there's no article on wikipedia, but still the award gets linked stating that the page exists.

Since as per WP:FILMCRITICLIST only awards having a wikipedia article should be there in an article and also it's written that "awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included". But when you go to link the award name i.e. Zee Rishtey Awards it does show that "the page exists". So it's not only a web entity right? Because when you try to link that, it does show that page exists and it does gets linked. Can this award be included in wikipedia article? As far as I could think and understand, I do feel that this award i.e. Zee Rishtey Awards should be included. These awards are telecasted on Zee TV every year. And they are certainly not any kind of channel awards but are annual award show conducted by Zee Entertainment Enterprises since 2007. I really want an opinion on this. Manalijain (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Pornographic images added to article - can the history be suppressed?

An IP has repeatedly added pornographic images to an article about a children's TV character (one very large and right at the top of the page). These have been reverted and the IP seems to have stopped for now but the images are still viewable in the history. From what I can tell REVDEL doesn't apply but is there another way to hide these edits? Princess Persnickety (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There'd be no reason to hide juvenile vandalism in non-live edits - unless some well-meaning editor pointed out they were there by complaining on a highly public page that's read by new/unfamiliar users, they likely wouldn't even know they were there in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's why I didn't link to the page in question. Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Still, for matters like this, it's often much better to contact an admin via their talk page or email, rather than use the Teahouse as a surrogate for a dramaboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Many thanks. Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived reference

When converting a bare URL reference and that reference is a dead link, is it acceptable to use the archived URL in the same place as the original URL would have been and not tweak the reference?

For clarification, I converted the bare URLs in the following two Wikipedia articles: Reference #2 in 2003 New Brunswick general election the archived URL is not tweaked, while Reference #1 in 2004 Democratic National Convention speakers the archived URL is tweaked.

Would the un-tweaked conversion of the reference be considered unprofessional/unacceptable?

The reason why I'm asking this question is there is a substantial growth of bare URLs at the Task Center and I'm trying to get as many as I can, but there are a lot of dead links that have to be looked for at the Wayback machine and I'm trying to speed up the process. I've been tweaking the archived URLs since I've been editing articles, just want to know if I've also been wasting my time if there's a faster approach to this. Pibal373 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pibal373: Welcome to the Teahouse! Reference #2 in 2003 New Brunswick general election did not follow the instructions laid out in Template:Cite web, so I fixed the reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks! Your correction answered my question and the reference was very helpful. Have a great day!--Pibal373 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft name misspelling

Is there a way to correct the spelling of this subject's draft from Quey to Quay? Steven Quay TIA 24.35.178.157 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 24.35.178.157 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There is, but it's unlikely to be relevant. If the draft is accepted the reviewer will move it to "Steven Quay" regardless of the draft's title. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns about who is working on Draft:Steven Quey. One IP removed the three earlier Declines - which I have restored. The creating editor is an IP, and this editor and seven (!) other IP editors have edited only this draft. I deleted all COVID-19 content that was not supported by reliable source references. Much of the other content has no references. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

In particular, a statement like and it is estimated that more than 80 million people have benefited from the research and parma he has invented doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article unless it is specifically supported by a high-quality independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Perplexing behavior of replacement image

I uploaded an image and noted a few days later that a person's name was in the image, and it needed to be blurred out. I did that with the original PC image and went through the Replace Image process. The File page for that image notes the modified one is now designated as "Current" and the displayed, 800x242 preview image is correct, as are the other two resolutions. Clicking on that preview image itself sometimes shows me the original version, and sometimes shows me the modified version.

When I attempt to insert the image into its intended draft page it shows the correct, modified version in the image dialog (where I disable text wrapping and set the image type to frame, but then clicking Insert inserts the original, unmodified image. (I've tried inserting with both the Visual and Source editors--no difference). I've repeatedly tried deleting, re-inserting, changing the image, publishing, page reloads, to no avail. I am at a loss. ThatMarcC (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks right to me, ThatMarcC. I suspect you just needed to purge. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you ColinFine! That took care of the problem. ThatMarcC (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

MacNolia Cox

Is anyone interested in creating a Wikipedia page for MacNolia Cox? I just read an article about her experience with racial discrimination traveling to and participating in the National Spelling Bee in 1936. I would create the page myself, but have no experience with creating or editing Wikipedia pages. 135.180.0.152 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not unthinkable that someone might. MacNolia Cox seems to have inspired several books, Georgia Lee Gay's "Whatever Happened to MacNolia Cox" and a book of poems by A. Van Jordan, re-imagining her life. The recent success of Zaila Avant-garde in the US Scripps national spelling bee has brought MacNolia Cox's name into the news too. All in all, that might well be good grounds for declaring MacNolia thoroughly notable and worthy of an article. I will list her name in WP's requested-articles on your behalf, but stuff tends to hang around there for ages. It would be best written by someone who has access to Georgia Lee Gay's book, I think. Anyone got it, or thinking of getting it? Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

added request here[[7]] Elemimele (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I created a page directly

Hello, I created this page without AFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolyon_Petch

Will it get deleted? Should I submit it through AFC? Ainamera22 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ainamera22. I think it's very likely that it will be at least draftified, unless you add the required independent sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Okays. I am trying to add more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs)

@Ainamera22: I made a few updates to the article, including removing the link to Fox Broadcasting Company, which is an American television network. There may be another "Fox" article related to radio in Australia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Permission to Publish

I would like to include the following material in a book I am writing. May I have your permission? If yes, please email it to me at (Redacted). Thank you for your consideration.

Chuck Mansfield

According to Wikipedia, “The 1938 New England Hurricane (also referred to as the Great New England Hurricane and the Long Island Express Hurricane) was one of the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclones to strike Long Island, New York, and New England. The storm formed near the coast of Africa on September 9, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane on Long Island on September 21. It is estimated that the hurricane killed 682 people, damaged or destroyed more than 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at $306 million ($4.7 billion in 2017). Damaged trees and buildings were still seen in the affected areas as late as 1951. It remains the most powerful and deadliest hurricane in recorded New England history, perhaps eclipsed in landfall intensity only by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. “At the time, roughly half of the 1938 New England hurricane’s existence went unnoticed. The Atlantic hurricane reanalysis in 2012 concluded that the storm developed into a tropical depression on September 9 off the coast of West Africa, but the United States Weather Bureau was unaware that a tropical cyclone existed until September 16; by then, it was already a well-developed hurricane and had tracked westward toward the Sargasso Sea [a region of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by four currents forming an ocean gyre (a spiral or vortex). Unlike all other regions called seas, it has no land boundaries. It is distinguished from other parts of the Atlantic Ocean by its characteristic brown Sargassum seaweed and often calm blue water.]. It reached hurricane strength on September 15 and continued to strengthen to a peak intensity of 160 mph (260 km/h) near The Bahamas four days later, making it a Category 5-equivalent hurricane. The storm was propelled northward, rapidly paralleling the East Coast before making landfalls on Long Island and Connecticut as a Category 3-equivalent hurricane on September 21. After moving inland, it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone and dissipated over Ontario on September 23.”

Map plotting the track and the intensity of the storm, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale.

(Map courtesy of Wikipedia.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.223.37 (talk • contribs)

Hello Chuck Mansfield, I have removed your email adress from this highely visible place, as answers would be provided on this page only (not via email) anyway. Regarding your question, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for more information about Wikipedia's licensing and reuseing Wikipedia content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Are some WP users representative of the Satanist Freemasonry?

Please, let you have a look to Talk:Sant'Angelo in Pescheria.

The expression Synagogue of Satan has been banned by the user @Bonadea:. But it it sourced in the encyclical Etsi multa luctuosa of Pope Saint Pius X. Is this document not a reliavble source? Or do we have to ask the permission for any word we use? This is against WP:NO censorship.

To reply with an automatic message is not repsectful. But some administrators are so busy not to do anything else. And this rollback couples with the same view which was unilaterally imposed with regards to Talk:Thule Society#Category:Satanism and Nazism, despite a variety of academic papers that have been produced. Do we comply withj the personal and private beliefs of some WP users?.Regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, since we are here, I'll ask any admins who might be around: the OP has been globally locked twice, with different accounts (admitted by the user on their user talk page). Neither of the accounts had been blocked at en.wiki, but from what I can see, their en.wiki activity contributed to the global lock, and both accounts had plenty of warnings about POV edits, adding original research to articles, and making personal attacks. (see histories of User talk:Philosopher81sp and User talk:Micheledisaveriosp). I did not want to report this new account if they actually started to respect the relevant policies (since they were strictly speaking not avoiding an en.wp block), but it looks like a non-starter. What's the best procedure? Report straight to meta stewards or ask for a local block first? --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theologian81sp Wikipedia's volunteer administrators (like me) simply don't have time to read and respond with personal messages to the myriad of silly edits, POV-pushing, crank theorists, vandals, edit-warriors and original research-pushers here. It's hadr enough to keep up with the demands on our time from neutral editors. Thus, templated messages should be seen as a necessity, and not as a personal insult. But your lengthy ramblings on various pages seem to deserve a lengthier response from me. Your talk page link at Thule Society, above, was so long-winded that I lost the plot of your argument. Nobody minds you referring to Synagogue of Satan, providing its usage is relevant to an article, and supported by reliably-published sources. It did not seem to be. Primary sources like academic papers are not acceptable, especially in fringe theory areas. We need secondary sources to have picked up upon those primary sources and talked about them at length. Mere mention of something like 'Synagogue of Satan' doesn't mean it can simply be thrown around willy-nilly in other articles (expect perhaps for the Daily Mail -). Nor is your categorisation of certain individuals as 'Satanists' unless there are reliable sources that support that view. Your personal opinions and biases are quite irrelevant here, as indeed are mine. So, yes, in a sense you may not use that term (i.e. banned) unless it can be directly shown to apply to the topic you are writing about.

You asked whether we comply with the personal and private beliefs of some WP users. The answer to that is 'no, we do not'. It seems to me (knowing little about the subject you appear to be promoting) that it is your personal and private beliefs you are trying to introduce here. I note (from @Bonadea's link) that you have previously been globally blocked from editing Wikipedia because of your problematic editing attitude, and I can understand why that might have occurred. For that reason, you are clearly editing as a WP:SOCKPUPPET and this admin will shortly be blocking you from editing en.wiki and undoing some of your more dubious edits. Other users here may wish to do that, too. As an example, any content you try to cite that is hosted at this site can simply be removed as unreliable and POV-pushing. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous spam situation on Microfabrication page

Hi, I encountered a couple of recent edits by an IP editor, 202.88.249.221, on the Microfabrication page. These edits add a YouTube link that was removed on a couple of other occasions (unambiguously spam), but also a few blocks of text that might be good-faith edits. Personally I think that the blocks of text make the article more difficult to understand, but they could theoretically be integrated into the article with some (very) heavy editing. How should I proceed? Is it acceptable to revert the edits entirely, or should I only remove the YouTube links? Inverted Hourglass (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inverted Hourglass: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it is acceptable to revert the edits entirely and then start a conversation on the talk page and invite the IP editor to participate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! I've done as you suggested. Inverted Hourglass (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Kaspar Mertz

Did he not compose for Solo Guitar the piece Elegie? 2601:643:8880:6320:ED:6095:608A:1AE1 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Try asking at WP:RDE. The help desk is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

My References are Relialble and I am Known as Well!

Hello everyone, i should mention that we have worked, since 2014 producing offline megazines, And i asked how to sources theme as well, still not success! I have bring you the most important, and rialble sources, which means that i have notabality as well online even we started the website. But the problems is that you don't know pashto lagnauge, and judging so blindly, like i have personal problem with you guys. It really disapointed me, When a volunteer send me a source which i was placed, he was translated in by google translator. When you guys know, there is less than 30% pashto in Google Translator. It cannot translate as simple sentece as "How are you". Trust me i would be the only one who have that much sources in this less time. it means that have notablity epecially producing offline papers megazinig.

Secondly, There was problem Conflict or someting like was wirtten, I have solved that problem first day the one valunteer in live chat. so there was log proccess pasting code and was much more thing that i followed as he said. He told me this is done and solved.

Please approved my article, Leggal article, not advertising or someting, followed every rule of wikipedia. and prepared perfences, I did everything was needed. I swear this is killing me, Please some how show mercy. and and give me my right to approve article. ImanSalvador (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Zwak News Agency   Maproom (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello ImanSalvador, I was in the middle of reviewing this earlier but another AfC reviewer beat me to it. You need to show, via sources, that the organization satisfies WP:NCORP. Currently, the sources in the article do not do so - sources 2 and 4 are indiscriminate collections of news agencies, thus failing WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage that can't be used to establish notability. Source 7 is the company's website (which is therefore not independent of the subject), whilst the remainder cover the subject in trivial mentions (e.g. "Zwak News said X, Y and Z") and therefore do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd also like to ask you to read WP:COPYRIGHT - I had to remove part of the draft as the section was copied from a website. You will need to find better sources to establish notability. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ImanSalvador: I restored and fixed the conflict of interest template on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the help he got from -en-help, there was some indication that he wasn't understanding what helpees are trying to tell him due to a language barrier, and I've personally pointed him in the direction of Pashto Wikipedia instead (as that's his mother tongue). He's been resistant to the idea of editing it before finishing his article here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Publish from sandbox

Hi! I have a question regarding my first article from sandbox. I cannot manage to make it public, I cannot find the ‘Move’ button. Can I please get some help? Thank you! Sângeorzan Adrian (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sângeorzan Adrian: Please see the reply at WP:Help Desk. RudolfRed (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Content banned

I've recently been content banned due to a misunderstanding. I just got a notification that an article I have been working on, currently in draft form, is due for deletion if I don't edit it soon. I would like to continue to improve it, but I'm afraid to. Any suggestions on how to save it? It really is a shame to lose all the effort I've put forth into making it a good article. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: You should not continue to work on the draft, if it is related to your topic ban. In the future, if you are successful in appealing your topic ban, you can ask for the draft to be restored so that you may resume work on it. See WP:REFUND. RudolfRed (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Cheryl Fullerton Meters (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Drafts that are deleted due to inactivity can be restored after they've been deleted (see WP:REFUND/G13), so I would suggest that you consider the suggestion at User talk:Cheryl Fullerton#May 2021 that you might appeal your topic ban after a suitable amount of time has passed and then ask for the draft to be restored should you be successful. Please note that a successful appeal will depend on you demonstrating that you've understood the reasons behind your topic ban and that the community can trust you to edit on the topic again in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheryl Fullerton, You are also free to copy the contents and work on it offline, so that if and when the ban is appealed, you will be ready to go. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can I update some of the Telemundo affiliates logos? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Be bold and use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)