Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1157

Archive 1150

←

Archive 1155

Archive 1156

Archive 1157

Archive 1158

Archive 1159

Archive 1160

Translation tool

Does there exist a tool for automatically identifying pages that exist on other language wikis but not on en.wiki? I've been doing translation work between us and out French counterpart, and so far, I've needed to manually go to the other wikipedia in order to check if the page exists. Just something to help identify pages needing creation.

For example: is there a tool that can tell me that fr:Xavier Rauffer exists on the fr.wiki but not the en.wiki? Rather then having to go to the language dropdown menu on fr.wiki directly.

Maybe a tool or function on WikiData, if not on en.wiki proper? Etriusus (Talk) 19:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki be of any interest to you? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages for featured articles on other projects that don't have an article here. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Translation states "Tools like this one can locate articles that may need translation by finding articles in other languages with no interwiki link to English, but interwiki links to several other languages." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What does it mean when I get notified that a page I created has been reviewed?

Just three hours ago (as of me asking), I got a notice that went like this:

The page IBM Frontier has been reviewed.

It made me curious. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy When a new page is created on wikipedia it goes into a "New Pages Feed". These pages are then reviewed by WP:New page reviewers who check the quality of the page to make sure it doesn't need cleanup tagging/deletion etc. What that message means is that someone has checked the page you made and in this case has marked it as OK. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting

Hi friends at teahouse. I just submitted a biography of a living person. Her name is CONSTANZA NAVARRO MEZA. Can you please help me edit it so it can go through without mistakes?

I want to ask you if you can help me redirect the following content in that biography

THE VOICE can you please put that to be redirected? GERARDO QUIROZ that is a mexican producer, can you please put that to be redirected? YUMA the city SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO the city NEW YORK the city

And every word you might find that needs to be in blue and underlined please fix.

Thank you Gelowiki21 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gelowiki21: Unless and until you start citing sources for every claim in the draft it's going to go absolutely nowhere. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources that I am citing. Its a lot of them. You also found sources of this biography on your own. Can somebody help me post this biography about thuis living person?

https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/constanza-navarro-meza-pasa-a-siguiente-etapa-de-la-voz-kids-8327454.html

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/la-pequena-constanza-navarro-es-seleccionada-en-la-voz-kids/325733

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/invitan-a-apoyar-a-constanza-navarro-desde-la-explanada-municipal-8320046.html

https://www.pressreader.com/mexico/tribuna-de-san-luis/20211016/281831466922992

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/reconoce-alcalde-a-constanza-navarro-como-orgullo-sanluisino/326544

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_VNrFtFDr8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omNDR9mrsWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_IxKzd9Ej8 Gelowiki21 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain you were told the lot of these sources were unacceptable. The articles are all minor or run-of-the-mill coverage and the YouTube links are videos of her singing hosted on unverified accounts. None of them are usable for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gelowiki21, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a draft without first finding independent reliable published sources is like building a house without first surveying the land you are intending to build on: it is likely to fall down and be a complete waste of your time and materials. Please read Your first article carefully.

In answer to your specific quesstion, please read Wikilinks, especially the section on "piped links". ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Navbox creation

I'm trying to create a navbox template for Rivian. Last time I did it with Morgan, I did the exact same source edits as Aston Martin timeline and It came out weird. TERGY 11:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tergy, welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't actually do the same in Template:Morgan timeline as in Template:Aston Martin vehicles timeline. Do you want help with Template:Morgan timeline? If you just want to create a new template for Rivian then you could create an attempt and ask for help with fixes. But Rivian is new with few models and we only appear to have articles about two of them. The main purpose of a navbox is not to show a timeline but to provide navigation to other articles and two is easy to manage so I don't think a navbox timeline for Rivian is a good idea. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but yes, I do need help with Morgan timeline. TERGY 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tergy: I have made it like Template:Aston Martin vehicles timeline.[1] Is there a reason for starting with 1938? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I need to change that I copied. TERGY 23:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating Out of Date Information

Hi, I'm a new editor and I'd like to update some out of date information on my high school's wikipedia page. Under the "athletics section", there is information about our previous athletics director, Scott Kennedy. Should I delete this info and replace it with information about our new athletic director, or should I leave it as a historical note and add the new information after? Thanks! Joeloesf (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Better in most cases like this to add the new information and remove the old information (presuming that few people outside of the school itself will be interested in List of Athletics Directors of Schoolname). Make sure you have a citation for the new information, like an announcement on the school website, or something like that. You may also want to have a look at WP:YOUNG. It might not seem like a big deal to mention that you're a current student at a particular school, but that might come back to bite you later. WP:YOUNG explains some of this and has instructions for what to do if you decide you don't want this information associated with your wikipedia account. -- asilvering (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Creation of an rcat for "to an article"

I want a or want to create a redirect category for a redirect "to a valid article". I've come across a lot of article titles which hosted articles (un-reffed or not) and get deleted, but are morphed (pop culture word for transformed) into excellent feature article candidate. Take this page link as an example to a proposed deleted article that was merged into the bigger article that I've just redirected to its current official name. I think that deserves at least a redirect category, don't you think?! Intrisit (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other editors here, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding exactly what you're asking. Could you reframe your question in a different way? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Imho, Intrisit is asking about Template:Redirect templates, also known as "rcats", which can do auto-categorization of the transcluding article. Their permalink references the article Monster High (film), which was once up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster High (film)) but ended up being merged into Monster High, which they feel is vindicated by being worthy of consideration as a FA (currently C class). The OP, if I understand them correctly, believes that this type of rescue of a nearly-deleted article which also involves an Rcat of the pre-merged title deserves creation of a new Rcat with auto-categorization, essentially, "Category:Redirect from a nearly deleted article to a really, really good one", although not in those words, of course.

Assuming I've correctly understood their request, I'd be opposed, as it's all very subjective and wishy-washy. However, I'm just one person with one opinion. A better place to raise this question, would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft reviewing activity not done

I was just trying to wait for a review for my Ecosse Heretic Draft, but so far, no one replied, or even reviewed it. I’ve waited for 2 days already and the draft is still not reviewed. What happened? Do I have to remove the pending draft template and then resubmit it? This is crucial. MegaMack02 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MegaMack02! Drafts can sometimes wait for reviewing for a long time. If it's a very clear cut yes/no, they tend to get accepted/declined more quickly, and if you add it to relevant wikiprojects that can help ensure that the relevant editors see it. I'll add it to some wikiprojects right now and review it, but it's just patience with this process, is all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MegaMack02. Please explain why thus matter is "crucial" Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried my best working 24/7 on the draft, and I as well have other drafts to work on, and the matter was crucial because, again, I have other drafts that need work, such as the GT Racing Draft Page, which remains unsourced so far. MegaMack02 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@MegaMack02 I think what @Cullen328 is asking is, "what's the hurry"? -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

OP has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the draft has been reviewed and declined twice already in two days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@MegaMack02 There are currently 3,000 drafts making up a 4 month backlog - you will just have to be patient. If you want to increase it's chance of being accepted you need to follow the advice given to you by the reviewers. You need to provide inline citations showing where the information is coming from - the second and third paragraphs have no citations at all. You've sort of done this in the first paragraph, just do the same thing to the other content. Who claimed the bike spat fire and smoke? Where have the engine specifications come from? who said that the night stalker was inspired by the Heretic? where could a reader look to check that you haven't just made this all up?

The good news is that you seem to have two pieces of independent journalism about the bike, I don't agree with @Asilvering's rejection as "non-notable", there does seem to be just enough there to be a borderline pass of WP:GNG. Rewrite the article based on what those sources say, and if you could find one or two more pieces of coverage of the bike in the same vein that would be good (remember that things like books are usable as sources too, sources don't have to be online). 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This one [2] looks solid and I think if the other paragraphs are filled in with citations it will probably be a clearer pass of WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve added the references for each paragraph. I have also resubmitted the draft for review. MegaMack02 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.85 The lazy fumes “story” is found at https://iconicmotorbikeauctions.com/auction/2006-ecosse-moto-works-heretic/ MegaMack02 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

MegaMack02, iconicmotorbikeauctions.com is not an independent, reliable source. That website is in the business of selling rare motorcycles, and has a commercial interest in portraying the motorcycles it sells in as favorable a light as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic for Split

The primary topic for Split is either the Croatian city or the James McAvoy film, why is Split a disambiguation? 94.21.120.255 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

When there's no singular primary topic, a page is generally made a disambiguation. Hope that helps clarify! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Split,_Croatia/Archive_2#Requested_move_21_January_2017 Seems to have been the latest discussion on that. You can start a new one if you want, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the primary topic is probably either the Croatian city or the James McAvoy film. --94.21.120.255 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, unless it's clearly one or the other, that means there's no one singular primary topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that the Croatian city should be primary. It existed long before the film, and will continue to exist long after the film is forgotten. If anyone wants to start a RM discussion on that, I'm happy to contribute to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It was opposed at Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 2#Requested move 16 May 2016, and that was eight months before the theatrical release of Split (2016 American film) which still has far more page views.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Looking at the discussion, I admit I agree with the outcome. As for page views, however, page views aren't relevant. Apple Inc. gets more views than Apple but we wouldn't call the company "Apple" even though that's its common name. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance." If the debate was simply about the city versus the film, the film has no comparison against a city that has existed since ancient times and is still thriving today, regardless of page views. In this case, however, the English language has too many meanings of the word "Split" while in Croatian "Split" means basically one thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Page views are a big factor in many disambiguation discussions and it's mentioned at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Determining a primary topic. I'm not saying the film is primary but the page views are significant in saying there is no primary. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This is useful to the discussion: WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY

In particular, these selections:

• "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative."
• "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic."
• "If an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name."

In conclusion I think Split pointing to a disambiguation page is a reasonable balance between long-term significance (Split, Croatia) versus primary usage (Split (2016 American film)). Doubly so given that there are 4 locations named Split and 7 films named "Split" or variations. The case for Split pointing to a disambiguation page is very strong.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My Page

Why did you delete my page? Gelowiki21 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't been paying attention to anything you've been told, then I'll make it crystal fucking clear. YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DOXX AN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gelowiki21. I disagree somewhat with the previous comment. It seems that the identity of the young person in question has been widely reported online, and certainly child entertainers can be notable. But it is also true that we have very stringent standards for such biographies of minor children, which includes impeccable referencing to the highest quality reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this very young person. Your draft was unreferenced, which is a policy violation. Jéské Couriano, perhaps you can explain why you think that "doxxing" is involved. Also, please do not drop the f-bomb at the Teahouse, especially in a discussion of a minor child.. It is entirely unnecessary. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Check your talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I have responded on my talk page, and I will hope that you will respond to the specific points that I have made, both here at the Teahouse, and there on my usertalk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Want to edit or create Major Article Draft:Govind Dholakia

Dear TeaHouse members, Namaste I am trying my hands on Wikipedia with small small edits and contributions. Now i am trying to create one article in Draftspace but earlier someone have tied many time and they failed and they made mistakes but now i am trying to create that article within WIkipedia guidelines. But, still older mentions and history hindering my article doubting my integrity to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govind_Dholakia i am trying my best to give it here but somewhere older impressions are coming in between and not letting me contribute in a larger way. Please help.. Brakshit23 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brakshit23: Please read Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected before an article can be accepted. We need multiple independent sources showing significant coverage. Your draft has only one such source. The rest are either not independent of the subject (interviews), or they are just mentions not coverage. One source is coverage of a book, not the person. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank You Anachronist. Really this was literally helpful and guiding answer so far.

Can you help me with which you found the direct coverage source for this article will find one and re-write the same and accordingly in my future article topics will make a note of it so accordingly i can build my draft. Brakshit23 (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to help find better references. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry...Okay David

Thank You Brakshit23 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Brakshit23, I responded to you at Draft talk:Govind Dholakia#Find sources. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles for submission

Fellow Wikipedians, greetings! I've a query regarding my article(s) for submission. Roughly two weeks ago, I submitted a draft titled JetSetGo, and about 3 weeks ago, I submitted another draft about a significant suspension bridge in India. Unfortunately, to my disappointment, they haven't been reviewed yet. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not impatient reckless—I'm aware they can take upto 4 months to get reviewed, and therefore 2-3 weeks is a relatively short time. However, as far as my observation is concerned, most draft articles get reviewed within the first few days of submission itself. Rarely do they take any longer than that, except of course in certain cases. Well at least in my case, all the drafts I submitted prior to the aforementioned ones were reviewed rather soon. So, frankly, that is my question: have the reviewing patterns changed lately, have my drafts got some issue(s), is this all just purely an outcome of chance, or am I just being absurd and impatient? Or something else? I'd be glad to know. Also, I there are some issues with my draft, for instance missing Wikiprojects or else, please do assist me/help me out. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dissoxciate! Drafts can sometimes wait for reviewing for a long time. If it's a very clear cut yes/no, they tend to get accepted/declined more quickly, and if you add it to relevant wikiprojects that can help ensure that the relevant editors see it. This allows more speedy reviews. MegaMack02 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @MegaMack02! That makes sense. I do remember adding relevant wikiprojects at the time of submission, though. Could you check them out once and let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissoxciate (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dissoxciate - you did indeed add relevant WikiProjects. MegaMack02 apparently didn't check that when they copy+pasted the reply made by asilvering to their own post above. NPP has been quite busy lately, so I'm afraid there's nothing to do but wait; you can still try to improve your drafts in the meantime 174.21.23.32 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the system is not a queue, and that Reviewers select what they want to review. David notMD (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate it! I guess I'll just wait till they get reviewed; and if anything, keep contributing to the drafts in the meantime. Dissoxciate (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this draft notable?

I started Draft:Pyrotechnics in the Philippines after porting information from 2007 Bocaue fire. As there isn't any other article exclusively focusing on the pyrotechnics industry of a country, I wanted to ask if this should be a standalone article or merged with the content of another page. Thanks, VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, do you have to be part of the GOCE to do copy-editing? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Vortex3427, how about making it "Fireworks policy in the Philippines", within the category Category:Fireworks policy by country? And I routinely copyedit despite not being a member of a "guild" of anything. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll consider the name change, but the article also goes into the incidents and use, and I also might talk about the industry in the country a li'l more (my original title for the article was "Pyrotechnics industry in the Philippines"). VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Pyrotechnics is a much broader topic than fireworks, but the draft discusses only fireworks. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Help to write English articles on Swedish designers

Hi!

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I would like to publish two articles in English that I've recently edited in Swedish about the designers Lars Bülow and Kersti Sandin Bülow. Since I work for them I understand that one can ask other Wikipedian to write the article for you in english. Is that correct? and how would I do that?

//Bodil Bodil Hasselgren (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bodil Hasselgren. You can create WP:DRAFTS for the articles and then submit them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think they're ready to upgraded to article status. However, before you try and create a draft, you should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and make sure you follow the guidance given on those pages. Undisclosed paid-editing is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundations meta:Terms of Use; so, you're going to need to declare any financial connection you might have to the individuals you want to create or edit any content about on Wikipedia. Before you start to create a draft, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Translate and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages. There might be lots of similarities between different language Wikipedias, but there are often some important differences; so, the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean there should be a corresponding article about the same subject on English Wikipedia. In order for any draft you create to be upgraded to article status, you're going to need to establish that the subject is Wikipedia:Notable per relevant English Wikipedia guidelines. Since English Wikipedia has the most articles and the most users, its policies and guidelines tend to be more rigorously enforced by the English Wikipedia Community than perhaps you find on other language Wikipedias. There may also be some stylistic differences between the way articles are written on English Wikipedia than they are on other language Wikipedias, but these are things that can usually be fixed. It's a lack of Wikipedia notability that is pretty much impossible to WP:OVERCOME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

CSD

What CSD criter(ion|a) do these two fall under? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I would tag them using {{Db-multiple}} under criteria G2 and G3. This seems to be someone screwing around or trying to make a hoax based on family guy? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, though it's not what they were indeffed for, the creator of those pages is a WP:DUCK sockpuppet of GeorgiPergelov2009. DanCherek (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagged, thanks! NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

editing Kola Boof page

Hello, I am writer Kola Boof. I do not know how to edit my page on Wikipedia. My official website has changed and I want to add that my wiki page as well as a photograph of myself. Can someone please help me? 170.250.203.70 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My official website is now https://writerkolaboof.online Can someone please change my page to reflect this. I will come back in a week after I have taken a new photograph but I want to hire a professional to take the picture. Thanks in advance for your help. Kola Boof 170.250.203.70 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We will not be able to use that photograph unless you either put it in writing in the contract that the picture is to be released under a specific licence (CC-By, CC-0, or CC-By-SA are all acceptable) or whoever ultimately holds the copyright to it after the photo shoot goes thru the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. I'll make the change to the infobox with respect to the URL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A simple path would be for the photographer to donate the photo. David notMD (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Or, depending on the wording of the contract, Boof himself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

When you have a new photo, the copyright holder (usually but not necessarily the photographer) can upload it with the process that starts here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this was a funny article-subject: seems to meet WP:GNG, and per NYT nothing about her can be trusted. Bit of a challange. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Kola Boof is the link to the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding categories on mobile web client

Is there a way to add categories on mobile web client? Currently i have to switch to the desktop version of the website while being physically on mobile which is annoying as the interface is scaled weirdly. Is there a setting or something like that which would allow me to add categories withot having to switch to the desktop web client? Gopher god (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the web client, but I recommend setting up HotCat in the "Gadgets" section of your preferences. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Gopher god (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Internet Culture

Previous discussion : #Social Media Influencers

Hi there! I submitted my first two articles submission to Wikipedia. Both were reviewed and not accepted. My focus is Wikipedia pages for social media (niche). For one of them, Jessy Taylor, I cited news coverage from multiple mainstream newspapers published worldwide. However, since I'm new, I understand I didn't go to the depth and didn't include everyone. I most likely did not do it correctly. Before any resubmission, I need to understand how many additional references are required to meet the notability standard for Jessy Taylor. I strongly feel that the Taylor Wikipedia page has a higher chance of getting approved than the Mary Magdelene since there wasn't much, to begin with, for Mary.

Regarding Mary Magdelene's draft, not sure what else I could add; everything that was available was on the DRAFT. Mary meets no notability standards and is a lot harder to write about. I did find a yahoo article about Jessyt that I'm wondering if I can use. All the people I'm writing about have a solid social media presence. Furthermore, I am now starting a wiki draft about Playmate Tessi. If anyone can help me with the Jessy or Playmate Tessi draft I'm starting, I would appreciate that. I have been a writer for four years. However, Wikipedia is much different than anything I had done. I'm a second-year college student, but I started school late due to other responblites, and now I have time to follow my passion. I love learning and expanding my writing knowledge.

-- TRASHING / DELETION

Draft:Mary Magdelene (I will trash since unable to find anything more unless anyone can help)

--- IN PROCESS · please make edits or add anything if possible.

Links - Jessy's Yahoo article

Draft:PlaymateTessi

Me2638 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Me2638: It is a little unfortunate that many newly-registered editors seem to believe that the best and only way to contribute to Wikipedia is to add new articles. It's unfortunate for two reasons. First, there are many other editing activities that are as important as (or more important than) creating new articles: for instance adding information to existing articles, updating references, fixing errors, adding links between Wikipedia articles, removing inappropriate text or sources, etc. Many of these things are a bit tricky, and it can be easy to get them wrong by (for instance) adding a source link to a website that is deprecated or adding too many Wikipedia links. But that's usually okay! Every single experienced editor has made a bunch of mistakes along the way (and I suspect all of us still make bloopers from time to time), and very few mistakes are truly egregious. Second, creating a new article is pretty much the hardest thing to do for a new editor – mainly because it involves all the tricky stuff such as evaluating notability, writing neutrally, using sources responsibly, picking the right sources, formatting the references, including a reasonable amount of detail in the text, etc. Once you have made a couple of thousand edits, most of those things will be much easier. And there will still be no shortage of notable topics to write about! :-)

As for the two individuals you created drafts about, it doesn't look like either of them is notable – that's often true about influencers and people who make a living by being visible on social media. The Yahoo.com article you linked to here is a press release written by her marketing agency. That is not an appropriate source, for multiple reasons: it is not independent, and it is promotional rather than informatinal. A press release can sometimes be used to verify specific facts, but it can never be used to support a person's (or organisation's) notability. --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Me2638: A quick search of Jesse Taylor shows that some newspapers (many of them tabloids) have covered her. You could start shifting through these sources, see which of them are reliable (I find this to be a good reference) and include them on the article. Best of luck, VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

My main concern with regards to Jesse Taylor is the coverage all seems to be connected to a single event, and not one that would reflect well on her at that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't publish

Hi. I’m pretty new and don’t know why I can’t publish anything. Help.

Your CLathrop202020 CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone help me??? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CLathrop202020, welcome to the Teahouse. Maybe I can clear up some of your confusion. The Articles for Creation process - WP:AfC - is a way of submitting new articles to Wikipedia, not for creating a page to tell other Wikipedians about yourself. The place to tell others about yourself is your user page, User:CLathrop202020, which I see you've discovered. You can just edit it, you don't need to submit it for review. I'd recommend not including any information that's terribly personal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And what if someone wants to ask me something and I am not available on wiki? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And not just on my talk page, also on other pages, e.x. On an article which interests me? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@CLathrop202020, if someone wants to discuss something with you about an article, hopefully they'll give you a WP:PING. I pinged you at the beginning of this message, which resulted in a little notifier popping up to tell you someone mentioned you at the Teahouse. This works everywhere on Wikipedia. You'll also get one of those notifiers when someone posts on your talk page, and if you link an email address to your account, you can get a email notification that someone has posted on your talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty editing

I edited Marshal Ney-class monitor and added the preceding and succeeding class but only the succeeding class was shown after I pressed publish changes History Buff1239ubj (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@History Buff1239ubj Template parameter names are case sensitive - you need to change Class Before to Class before (change the b to lowercase). 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Which I have just done, and returned to find the answer has preceded me. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How to mark a source as being deficient?

I recall seeing, sprinkled throughout wikipedia, a markup saying "better source needed" or "more reliable source needed" or something like that. I just read the Joel Stratton article. It has one source and that source is a terrible source. How do I mark that source as being deficient? Katrina Char (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You can use the better source needed inline tag, instructions here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I create a page for an art exhibition?

I would like to create a page for an art exhibition, but I haven't found any similar content on Wikipedia: for instance, I only found pages regarding specific big art shows like Expo or La Biennale, but not for single shows like the one I want to talk about. I was wondering if it's possible or if it is prohibited for some reason I could not find on the guidelines. Thanks for the help. 79.58.2.33 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and try The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the art exhibition, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. We have several hundred articles about art exhibitions. You can navigate to them at Category:Art exhibitions by country. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

However, note that if this is an exhibition that has already taken place, then provided there are sufficient published reliable sources independent of the event, its organisers and its exhibitors, there should be no problem, BUT if this is a forthcoming event, not only are such sources required (which is less unlikely), but you would need to avoid any hint of promotion, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

More generally, Wikipedia has many guidelines, both general and specific, but you could usefully begin by reading WP:Five pillars. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

An article on Technoblade

Considering the recent news around the content creator, Technoblade, and it's (likely expected) increase in popularity in the news, I would like some feedback on if creating a page on it is a good fit for the site. I understand some media producers have a page, while others do not. The purpose would be of educational value, with no bias involving recent events. Similar in nature to what's found on Wikitubia. Hyrdonic (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The article Technoblade was created just today, in fact, and there's probably enough coverage out there on him (especially after his death). However, the current article is virtually a stub so you could help expand it with more sources. Best of luck, VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Try [4] and [5] for sources? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We already have one - Technoblade. Although, it's currently up for proposed deletion as someone felt the noteability (as Wikipedia defines the term) is not currently demonstrated in the article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Image issues

I'm a singer songwriter and have enjoyed having a page on wikipedia that I didn't touch for many years. This year the picture of me that had been there was replaced with a picture of someone else. I tried to replace it with a picture of myself. . I think I only succeeded in deleting the picture. Which is an improvement, if it had a picture of me, that would be even better. Any help appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Jean NikkiJean92 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@NikkiJean92: I've added the image that you were trying to add. OK now? Deor (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Deor has fixed the image for you, but you might also want to talk to the folks at Commons regarding c:Category:Nikki_Jean, which is where the wrong picture came from. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's perfect. I've always thought it best practice to stay out of your own wiki page, so this is new to me and I appreciate it. Also am following your advice. Thank you. NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NikkiJean92, you should also contact WP:VRT so they can verify your identity and image copyright status. Unfortunately we often have to deal with users who present themselves as celebrities when they are actually agents, family, friends or fans. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Just emailed them. You and @Deor

have really helped me a lot today. the whole wiki verse is so foreign to me. Thank you! NikkiJean92 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NikkiJean92 I would note that you don't "have a page" here; Wikipedia has an article about you here. This is a subtle but important distinction. I might suggest reading the autobiography policy for some information. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm learning. The community has been so helpful, I've started taking the intro courses and everything. It is not my intention to alter the article in any way. As a lesser known artist, it is harder for a community member to know or notice if picture posted of me, is in fact me. In this case, the picture attributed to the article was of someone else. My initial impression from going through this process is that visual information, images, don't require the same level of citing and scrutiny of their content. It is my understanding that pictures of someone else attributed to the article were a violation of the biography of living persons policy. Where it states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." As I had been presented in a false light. I have no preference on whether the photograph posted is the one I contributed or one someone else contributes, however it does seem appropriate that it should be a picture of me. If you have any further suggestions let me know, I have been following all of them! And everyone has been lovely. NikkiJean92 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@NikkiJean92, thank you for asking questions and listening to advice rather than charging about in a Moral Outrage. The one approach generally gets better results than the other.

A few further FYIs as you explore Wikipedia-land: this template - {{request edit}} (click on the link for further info) - can be used on the talk page of the article about you (at Talk:Nikki Jean) to request additions or corrections that fall outside fixing obvious vandalism or BLP violations. Also, you might want to add the following COI userbox to your user page so all your bases are covered: {{UserboxCOI|1=Nikki Jean}}. (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI for where I'm getting all this.) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I did what you suggested on my User page and it was removed by another user, I think its because the COI is supposed to be on articles and not user pages. Does that sound right? Also. . complete face palm after I read your last message. To think I could have skipped all this and simply requested and edit. Wow. Well, when you know better you do better. I'll certainly be passing that on to any artists friends who come across challenges in the articles about their career. Thanks again. NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that's not right. . they left this message and I don't know what it means Do not use {{#invoke:Protection banner|main}} if a page is not protected NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@NikkiJean92, the template I posted above - {{UserboxCOI|1=Nikki Jean}} - goes on your user page (User:NikkiJean92). The one you have there right now is a different template, {{connected contributor}}, which goes on the talk pages of articles (there's already one at Talk:Nikki Jean). As far as I know, it's not 100% necessary to have both, but it makes things easier for other folks and shows you're really serious about the whole disclosure thing.

I don't know why you got a message about a page being protected - that's a bit confusing. I don't see any reverted edits to your user page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I presume the revert is this one. See also Aidan9382's question at User talk:NikkiJean92#Question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel like I should just leave a comment to clarify. The whole protection module issue was caused by the fact that, over on commons, PP is used for Permission pending, while on the English Wikipedia PP is responsible for the protection banner and OP is the correct template. I've brought this up with the VRT team to see if this confusion can be cleared up. Hope this explains stuff. Aidan9382 _(talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Archive

I have an automatic archive set up on my sandbox talk page User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox to archive anything over 30 days old, yet there is stuff there from 4 years ago that just sits there. Can someone explain how to 'manually' archive? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Jenhawk777. It seems that the reason the archiving bot hasnt archived anything yet is because in the template, |minthreadsleft is set to 3. This means that the archiving bot will always leave the 3 most recent threads there, regardless of age. As for manual archiving, you can either use a tool to do it for you, or just simply move the content of the page onto the archive page. Aidan9382 _(talk) 05:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

hire an editor?

I have written a proposed topic. It stayed dormant too long and is now deleted. I would like someone to take my work, which just, I think, needs best formatting, and finish the process.https://armoredmudballs.rocks 24.151.142.194 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP user. I'm assuming that you are asking about this page, deleted under G13. If you move it to draft space once it is restored (log in to your account because IPs cannot move pages), then anyone can work on it. You don't need to hire someone to work on an article with you. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. (Sidenote: Guidelines state that editors should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful, so it would be better if you moved it into draft space) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone hoping to improve your draft will probably want access to your sources (some of which are cited in the approved way, some listed just above the "References" section). I am left wondering: are there contemporary armored mud balls? Streams where I can find the things being formed? If not, why not? Maproom (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Making a new article.

Hi! Question. @Robertsky can prob. Answer this. How do I make a new article. CLathrop202020 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@CLathrop202020 First, gather the sources that meets the demands of WP:GNG. If they don't exist, pick another subject. Check WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, this is essential. If the article is about a living person, read WP:BLP. Then move on to WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Merci CLathrop202020 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How to move a section of article I made in my sandbox?

I haven't completed working on the section yet but once I'm done, how do I move it to the article? (I'm working on sections for Jean-René Lecerf and Genlis, Côte-d'Or) Excellenc1 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Excellenc1, you could simply copy and paste the text into the article. Baggaet (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 If you are the only person who has worked on this sandbox you can just copy and paste the content across with no issues. If other people have worked on the content in your sandbox then you'll need to provide attribution when copying the content across by using an edit summary like "Content copied from User:Excellenc1/sandbox, see that page's history for attribution". 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Excellenc1. If you wish to delete the original sandbox page, put {{Db-g7}} at the top of your page. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Baggaet @Urban Versis 32 @192.76.8.85: Thanks for the help, I have now moved the content to the article. Can you as well please review the article again maybe? (Jean-René Lecerf - this article) Excellenc1 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

English entry for existing German wiki entry

Hello, is there a way to take an existing German wiki article and create an English wiki entry?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Keane Already exists. I would like to create the same entry in en.Wikipedia. I couldn’t figure out a way so I began creating a new article in English for Hannah Keane. It was rejected by Star Mississippi saying the subject does not qualify for wiki entry. I only published a simple beginning entry to get it started. I would prefer to not have to make a completely new entry in English. I know I can translate the German article but that does not help if someone is searching for Hannah Keane in English. Thanks for your help. Dhkeane (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hannah Keane was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. You should not have submitted it to AfC before using content and references that exist in the German version. Do remember to creit the sources of your information in your Edit summary. Refs in English Wikipedia does not have to be in English. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dhkeane, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating articles translated from articles in other Wikipedias is encouraged, but must still meet en-wiki's criteria for sourcing: see Translation. You can work on your draft until you think it is ready, but it is a waste of everybody's time to submit it for review before then.

What is your relationship to Hannah Keane? Hour username suggests you may be connected: if so, you need read about editing with a conflict of interest. If you are Hannah Kean, then you need to understand why autobiography is strongly discouraged. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. I believe I had submitted my final draft of Hannah Keane for review. Yes, I understand there may be a conflict of interest issue since I am her father. I tried real hard to be factual and not embellish in any way. If you or anyone thinks the article should be modified due to my natural conflict of interest please make changes or let me know. Thank you. Dhkeane (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Updating departmental councils in 2027

After the 2027 French departmental elections, who'll update the list of vice presidents in the articles on the councils? Most of them are just stubs but still, there are 60 of them as of now. (See Category:Departmental councils (France)) (P.S.: I know it's far in the future, just asking out of curiosity) Excellenc1 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If somebody is interested enough to update them, then they will. If nobody is, then they won't get updated. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

st helen's church trowell references

I've asked about this before and ended up going around in a circle having been told that the references in this article are fine and that Wikipedia is the starting point for projects and no more. After giving this some consideration I have decided to give it one more try with the reasoning that if the starting point is misleading it becomes a dead end. My concern is that the first two references given, to Pevsner and Historic England, both date the earliest part of this church to about the early 13th century, no problem with that so do I. The article then claims a date of 1080 for the construction of the chancel thus contradicting the first two references. It is also claimed that the chancel is Early English in style, agreed, but this style is commonly agreed to date from the late 12th to late 13th centuries, including by the Wikipedia article on it. There are also concerns with other sources making unsubstantiated claims but that is not Wikipedia's problem.

What I would like to know is how I can insert a box warning of misleading references similar to those I have seen on other articles where better, or more, referencing is needed. Historydebunk (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk: If you go to WP:TMV, you will see a variety of templates you can use to flag sourcing problems. Scroll down to the "Tags inline with article text" section, and you will find templates that you can insert after an individual reference to question the reference. Deor (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deor I'll have a look at that. The difficulty is that some of the sources given are fine but the article itself then either ignores or contradicts them. I think the best way would be to try what you have suggested for the reference given for the 1080 date and refer readers back to the Pevsner and Historic England references that both give 13th century. Thanks again. Historydebunk (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a tag {{failed verification}} for that case. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What does vandalism mean?

Is appreciating another user's spreading of kindness and love actually considered vandalism in Wikipedia???[6][7]

I would like to know which policies support such a weird idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.242.41 (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism is as described in WP:Vandalism. If you believe that you have been wrongly accused of vandalism, you can choose to make an issue out of this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There were recent edits by three different IP addresses to that user talk page. One was obvious vandalism, one was borderline and the one linked to above was strange and out of the blue. The administrator took a look at the pattern, not just one edit. Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Workman

i am trying to find out why he is not listed as a 2018 World Champion. There are addresses to consult on the.editing page but I cannot find them. He was on the team, pitched in the playoffs, and is listed elsewhere as a 2018 world champ. Redsox9175 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Brandon Workman - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Redsox9175. According to the article, He was replaced on the roster by Pomeranz for the World Series, which the Red Sox went on to win over the Los Angeles Dodgers. The other player is Drew Pomeranz. So, he played on a championship team but did not play in the World Series that resulted in that championship. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Redsox9175: He was not on the World Series roster. See this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_40#Inclusion_of_players_as_World_Series_Champions. It goes against this, but that's what it is. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

'Vagina' page -image of yew lambing (at the bottom of the page), excellently shows the sleeve of perineal skin and underlying pelvic floor muscle around the lamb's neck, having moved out of the pelvis

Please add text to the image, The sleeve of pink tissue around the lamb's neck is: the stretched perineal skin and underlying pelvic floor muscle. Once the lamb exits the birth canal, the elastic muscle will ensure the pelvic floor and overlying skin contract, narrowing off this opening to the lower abdomen and move back to its original position, at the outlet of the pelvis. In the human, the horizontal 'pelvic floor muscles' adopts a vertical position, functioning as a trapdoor, to allow the foetus to exit and the springs back to the horizontal position, to function as the floor of the lower abdomen and also narrows off the opening of the lower abdomen, as the muscle contracts to its original length. Schebytavun (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Schebytavun, if you don't want to make this change yourself, you could make the suggestion at the article's talk page. (The creatures that produce lambs are ewes, not yews.) Maproom (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected ewes. Schebytavun (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article thats title currently exists as a redirect

Hi, I'd like to create an article titled Clairaudience (the phenomenon of being able to hear spirits), but “clairaudience” currently redirects to Clairvoyance (psychic power), yet this article mentions nothing at all about the phenomenon of clairaudience. Can you please tell me how I might go about this? Or would I be advised create a section on clairaudience for the article on clairvoyance instead? Thank you in advance! Brian B. Smith (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Brian B. Smith, the current article on Clairvoyance currently starts by telling the reader that it's "the claimed ability to gain information about an object, person, location, or physical event through extrasensory perception". I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of that, but anyway it doesn't distinguish between the claimed seeing of the invisible and the claimed hearing of the inaudible. It's thus not clear that "clairaudience" merits its own article (particularly as the article on "clairvoyance" isn't particularly long). -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks! Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...So a new section within the existing article would seem to be the better idea (I hear you say), always providing that you supply the relevant citations to reliable sources of course.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice, I think that's what I'll do. "Feed me" is hilarious btw :) Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well known global advocate

A well known human rights advocate has been featured and interviewed on national and international news networks. Does this make her notable? MovieGeek1986 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MovieGeek1986, try the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Also check Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@MovieGeek1986 Be aware that newspaper or TV interviews held directly with people are not always acceptable as sources. I say this because we prefer to rely upon what other people have written about the subject, and not what they say about themselves in interviews. So try to find 3rd party Sources upon which to assess notability wherever possible. As always, it can be a case of common sense having to be applied. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, very helpful! MovieGeek1986 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I am myself new, but been doing lot's of research on notability. Interviews are not acceptable as they are considered unreliable when it is direct from the subject. The person will need multiple news articles about them for the best chances. Dwnloda (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Need your opinion on this draft

I would like your opinions whether you think this draft User:Dwnloda/sandbox is good enough to be submitted to the AFC and whether you see any issues with it or what edits or changes you recommend before it is submitted to the AFC. Overall do you think this page has a chance? Dwnloda (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwnloda: Asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 June 28#Need opinions on a draft. Remember that album titles should be italicized. What's the [13] in the first sentence of the "Career" section for? GoingBatty (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, only got one response before, trying to get more responses. so [13] has been added now, which is [8]. It is a university thesis paper, but not by the subject. He is mentioned in this thesis paper. Is it acceptable to use this source? Dwnloda (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwnloda: Sure, but I suggest using {{cite thesis}} instead. GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwnloda Also, since the lead states that he's collaborated with some famous musicians, I suggest you expand on those collaborations within the rest of the article, especially if you think these collaborations demonstrate his notability. GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Do notifications received go in a log that others can see?

If so, who has access to it? 104.2.24.188 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@104.2.24.188 Yes and no, if you are referring to User talk:104.2.24.188 then yes, other users can see them and they are logged to the page history. If you are referring to the Bell icon () that appears when logged in as registered user on desktop/mobile, these are notifications that you can only see yourself however these types of notifications are when you get a WP:PING or when other user posted on your talk page hence when click they direct you to the respective pages where you're pinged on or to your user talk page which they are "logged" to the page history of that respective pages. If you are referring to the tray icon () that appears when logged in as registered user on desktop, then no, those notifications are only viewable by yourself. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

How to indetify reliable sources.

Hello at everyone on the Teahouse community. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia & I was wondering how can I identify credible third party sources? What should I look out for? and what are some good things to know? Thx so much in advance. Skywalker 1000 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Skywalker 1000 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about reliable sources for more information, but in short, you want sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, they shouldn't have a reputation of making things up, or of reporting without checking their information. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot create an article

[8] shows me as an 'extended confirmed user'. I had understood that that allowed me to create an article. I have created articles or redirects many times in the past - see [9]. However, when I recently tried to do so, I got a message that "The page ... does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Can anyone shed any light on why this is, or what has changed? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Either the title is full-protected (more likely) or the title is blacklisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the same thing happens no matter which title I use for an article. I discovered the problem when I tried to create "Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency)." Can you give me a link to what "full-protected" means in this context? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alekksandr, If you make a link on your userpage to yourarticlename can you then click the link and edit from there? Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Realized you named the article, I have no issue trying to edit Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency) Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked. I seem to be able to create articles using that method, but not by searching for the title. Alekksandr (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alekksandr, when the search returns "The page name does not exist", the name portion should be in red. Click the red link to open that page, then just add your content and save/publish. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Vanished user become unvanished but still named Vanished user xxx

Not sure if this is the right venue to ask this question, I came upon Vanished user 2904001 editing on Im Nayeon and WJSN yesterday. They also created a redirect IM NAYEON on the same day. And looking at their contribs, user became Vanished user on 6 October 2021 but 15 days later, user edited Blue Banisters, then around 8 months (yesterday) later, they edit the two articles mentioned earlier. Should their username be rename back to their pre-vanished username, if so where can I ask them to go to as I think they don't seem to be aware of? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy. If you think their name is confusing or violates that policy by all means discuss it with them on their Talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shantavira According to Special:PageHistory/User talk:Vanished user 2904001, their username was renamed on 6 October 2021 as mentioned above which goes against point 6 of WP:MISLEADNAME hence Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy doesn't make sense as they can't request themselves to be renamed to "Vanished user xxx". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RTV "f the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed". DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Equation

I newcomer in Wikipedia, but I'd like insert chemical and physic equation in wikipedia page. I can't wait to collaborate with all of you. OrlanC (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@OrlanC: Math equations here use LaTeX markup. See WP:MATH for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@OrlanC: For chemistry, I suggest you read MOS:CHEM and perhaps include yourself in our Project WP:CHEMS. Welcome to Wikipedia editing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please can someone help with my citation error at John Middleton (giant)

I've just attempted to add an existing reference to a sentence at John Middleton (giant) and in doing so have created the error message "Cite error: The named reference "bbc" was defined multiple times with different content". I've read the help page but to be honest I didn't understand it...I suspect it's a simple fix but it's beyond me! (This is why I usually stay away from referencing).

Please could someone have a look at it for me? Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

PrincessPersnickety, fixed. The BBC ref had already been defined, all you needed to do was call it like this: <ref name=bbc />. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Schazjmd - I think I must have been missing the space before the slash as nothing was looking right in the preview! I appreciate the speedy response :) Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing what I believe to be a mistake

A page has a person's birth and death dates. I believe the death date to be incorrect based on personal knowledge. I will have to do further research to determine the actual death date. I am basing this on the fact my father, a minister, did the person's funeral. He moved from the town where it is listed the man died 4 years before the death date listed in the man's biography. Should I wait til I have proof (not sure how to proceed?) Stevem451512 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would absolutely do that. Anything you add based on what you personally know is unlikely to survive being challenged by another editor; an edit with a published source is almost guaranteed to survive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stevem451512 Just to add to the sound advice by @Jéské Couriano, there could be times - and this might be one of them- where simply leaving a note on the talk page of the article to explain what you think to be an error, and why, whilst at the same time making it clear you recognise the article can't be changed based on your knowledge. That might, in future years, be a useful prompt for someone to go digging into published sources or obituary notices. Without that slight niggle being flagged up, they might never think to investigate further. But no changes should be made to the article itself, and I'm assuming that a source is actually given for that ostensibly erroneous date? If not, you could flag it as {{dubious}}, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to add a newspaper reference confirming the date, which I have done. Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Nick about noting this for the record. Stevem451512, every content page has a corresponding "talk" or "discussion" page. Even if there is no immediate discussion, concerns about factual inaccuracies can be recorded there permanently for future reference. In this case you would go to Talk:Earl Marlatt, add a new section, give it a heading like "Date of death", and post your comment below. (The process of adding a new section should now be similar to how you posted your Teahouse question, but if you run into difficulties, please post back here and someone will assist.) Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Scary user page messages

Hello,

I created a user name and, I thought, page, on Wikipedia in approximately 2016; it was dormant for a while, but I've since done enough editing to qualify to create an entry. I'm creating my draft in my sandbox, which is where I thought it was supposed to go while still in drafting phase, but I've encountered notices that claim Wikipedia does not have a user page with my name. When I signed on, I opted not to fill in any details till I knew my way around. I also thought I began my wiki article on a subpage in my sandbox, using the visual editor. How could I get to a sandbox without having a user page, much less a subpage? I'm now getting a rather glaring notice in a pink box that informs me "Please do not draft new articles here — to do that, create a userspace draft." Underneath it is the earlier notice that says Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. But the top of my page says "User:TexasEditor1." That's me!

I'm trying very hard to be respectful and learn — and follow — the rules. I've already put so much work into verifying and adding links and references and making sure my writing is factual and neutral. What do I need to do to make sure I'm creating it where and how I'm supposed to be? I'm afraid I'll lose what I have if I create a user page and it tries to tell me that user already exists. TexasEditor1 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1: I'm kinda confused by what you're describing. It sounds like it'd be easiest to see if you could post up screenshots of what you're seeing, say, in imgur and give us the links.

In the meantime, though, the best way to make sure you don't lose progress is to switch to "source editor" (it's a pencil icon in the top right corner, to the left of "Publish" if you're using visual editor). Once you've got the source code stuff, just select everything, copy it, and paste it in a notepad on your computer. Save that notepad file so that even if you lose internet connection or something else happens, it'll still be saved on your computer.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

From your Contributions, looks as if your draft is now at Draft:Mark Addison. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, "Publish changes" means save. You also have an empty Sandbox at User:TexasEditor1/sandbox/Mark Addison which you can ignore or delete, as you have successfully moved your content to the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks David! (and Jasonkwe

I think I wanted to work on it in the sandbox; that's where it goes when it's still in progress, right? But it seemed as if the only way to save it was to turn it into a draft. I did save copies in source code and visual editor (pasted into Word). Now I have to figure out the rest of my external refs; I have a few in paywalled newspaper archives and haven't qualified to access the Wikipedia library. My big concern is one quote I'm using from a Plain Dealer review. TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1 I think you can worry a little bit less than you are now. Sandbox generally keeps things safe from altering or breaking anything important. And even if you do, you can always revert changes. Submitting a draft article for review is good but not "technically" necessary. You could just make a new article like this and publish it to the world like this. I didn't do that but wikipedia can be altered by anyone and everyone (hence the tools the mods use to prevent vandalism).

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination since Wikipedia has lots of guidelines and rules and manual of style recommendations. But those key principles do include WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPERFECT. Wikipedia is a self-correcting machine and problems get pointed out and worked on by others. Not saying it's nice or polite to throw something out completely half baked but something (if constructive and useful about a notable topic) is usually better than nothing. All articles start somewhere and many start as little stubs that get built on by others. One of the articles that's featured as "In the News" on wikipedia's front page June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, started out as this [10]. The article for George HW Bush started out as this [11]. I definitely sympathize as I'm doing the same (quietly working on an article I plan to publish until it's ready to go) but it is a collaborative effort that no one has to do alone.

Freely accessible sources are definitely preferred but you can use sources that are stuck behind paywalls. If you have personal access and can read those articles or publications to verify they back up what you're saying in the article, that's adequate WP:SOURCELINKS. It's definitely an annoyance when a cited source isn't freely available through the internet but that's just how it is sometimes--books are a common example of this as lots of books aren't freely available online in their entirety but are often cited as sources in wiki articles. One other note, I did see a few sources in your draft are from IMDB. Generally, anything that is openly editable on the internet isn't a good source (which is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable citable source either).

Your draft on Mark Addison is definitely impressive for an article written from scratch! Wikipedia does have guidelines on biographies of living people so you should check that if you haven't already. Usually the big issue is of notability but I can see that there's interviews from notable sources about him. The other big problem is often conflict of interest as people often write about themselves or are paid to write/promote someone. I don't think you are Mark Addison (since your user page says you're a journalist) but even that's not an instant disqualifier if you follow the guidelines.

One last plug: my one advice/plea to editors (besides citing authors which you're good at but most wiki editors seem to be allergic to.....) is to add archived links. Articles written even 5 years ago often have broken sources because the website they link to did some changes to their system and all links to pages on their old site are useless. Annoys me to no end. Best thing you can do is to include Internet Archive snapshots of the pages you're citing. If there isn't a snapshot of the page that you're using on Internet Archive already, then you can/should make one. Helps preserve the internet's useful information for generations to come. For instance, I often use soldiersystems.net as a source. Their articles generally get archived but some don't. If I wanted to cite this article, I would definitely make a snapshot of it and include it in the citation (this isn't the same page but it's a snapshot of another page that is stored on Internet Archive). Images often get broken in snapshots but that's still much preferable to having nothing. Anyway, happy editing! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You are my new hero. Thanks for all the great advice! I most certainly am not Mark Addison, and do have an uncopyrighted photo to add that would indicate that (if you knew what I looked like!). Suffice to say I am not a bald male and he is. I didn't think IMDB was editable by anyone, but that's good to know. I hope I'll be able to substitute those refs, though I'm wondering if I'm overdoing it a bit anyway.

I have written about Mark and many of the cited people before and think he has an interesting story — one that's definitely legitimate enough to be on Wikipedia. (I'm from Pittsburgh, only two hours away from Cleveland, and spent a lot of time there covering the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, so I relate to his history, and both of us now live in Austin.)

I'd rather not put it out there with a lot of incomplete sourcing or incorrect referencing/punctuation, but I may have to let a few things slide because this thing is so reference- and link-heavy, it's taking forever.

I just have one other big problem: I've been using AP style all of my professional life. My brain cannot handle the concept of putting commas and periods outside of quotes! I know I'll have to go through this and fix that, but it will be very painful.

As for the couple of paywalled articles I need, the issue is that I can't even get into the archives to get the urls. I got copies of the stories from their author, but no actual link. (Like me, he copied stories out of his newspaper archives when he had access, before they all threw up paywalls or killed older content.) I've temporarily put in the info without links, and didn't get red-flagged when I inserted them, but it seems pointless to reference something no one can check. I can screen-shoot what I have, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

Unfortunately for me and many other journalists, most of my career doesn't exist, as far at the internet is concerned. I was a full-time newspaper writer and editor for 20 years; only one of my former employers has online archives that include my work. I wrote for two magazines that are now owned by the same publisher — whose web designer somehow managed to wipe bylines off of every archived story. Ten years down the tubes. But their archives don't even go back far enough to include some of my favorite cover stories. Muckrack may have some, including uploaded PDFs, but I haven't seen any evidence that Wikipedia accepts those.

But I'm glad I'm taking the plunge.

One other question ... I checked pages by someone I know is paid to write entries, and she linked to pages on every mention of something like "Austin, Texas." There's no need to repeat links on each mention of a name or place, correct? TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1 Yeah, I'm glad I can help! And no worries lol, no need for the photo, I trust that you are (or in this case, aren't) what you say you are/aren't (man that's awkwardly worded).

I think the tough thing to wrap the head around is that this isn't one's job (usually). If you handed in a half done article to your boss, I imagine they'd look at you like you have three heads and tell you to go and finish it. But if you went to a food drive and contributed several dozen cans of food but didn't have any fresh fruit to give, no one would turn you away or think you did less than was required, you know? Same here (but see below about being paid for writing).

Haha I hear you, it's tough to change those habits. I'm a double-space after period person and changing that here was difficult lol. But wiki has introduced me to the day-month-year format and I really appreciate that. I don't think most of us in America have much exposure to that format.

Hmm....I see your point. I agree that archives of old magazines and newspapers not being available is frustrating. Only 20 years ago most libraries kept archives on microfilm but I'm not sure about that anymore. I was looking for a tag that would mean something like "need help getting a URL to this source that I have in my hands but can't find online" but the closest I could find was {{dead link}}. And I think that's 'cause if the source was published, it can be used, regardless of whether it's easily accessible by internet or to the average user (so there's no tag for this kind of case because there's nothing that needs to be fixed with such a citation). The fact that it would be hard to even get a hardcopy of the source complicates it a bit (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Indicating_availability).

But if you have a physical copy of the newspaper article, you could upload it into an archive (like internet archive which has a place for these kinds of uploads). If you can scan in the article with enough of the rest of the newspaper visible to identify that it is a legit newspaper, I think it should be adequate. Just include the archive link in your citation and you would be good.

I wasn't familiar with Muckrack before but it seems that there was some discussion about it and it was decided that if the articles/uploaded pdfs are listed on a verified journalists' accounts (possibly even your own account if yours is verified), it's ok to use. If you could upload it to both Muckrack and Internet Archive, I think that'd be even better! Internet archive because if Muckrack ever goes belly up, there'll still be a copy on the former. And uploading it to Muckrack (if you have a verified account) gives it even more authenticity because the article will be linked to a verified account (yours). And I definitely sympathize with you. I think most people don't realize how much journalism changed with the rise of the internet and the impact it had on journalists whose shoe-leather journalism was paid for by the newspaper's revenue. I dunno if that revenue has returned with digital advertising on news sites but I hope it has.

One thing you can do is put up your thoughts/concerns about the sources in the article's talk page. Hopefully, other editors who may disagree or have issues with some of your edits will see your notes in the discussion page and you can talk it out there, avoiding an edit war.

You mentioned it in passing but conflict of interest with being paid to write an article is a complicated issue and way out of my depth. I don't know if that's your situation (or if you're writing purely for satisfaction) but there are guidelines on that here WP:PAY. If you are writing just for enjoyment, you can ignore that.

But as far as including links for every single mention of a thing that has a wiki article, yeah, you don't have to do every single one. My preference is to do it like I would an abbreviation of an acronym--include the link for the first use of it in the article and maybe in later uses if you think a reader might have jumped to that point in the article without seeing the previous link. For example, Austin, Texas is mentioned earlier in the article as where Joe Schmoe did a lot of his early performances. But later on, in the Personal life section, Austin, Texas is also mentioned because it's where he settled down in his 40s and it would be fine to include the link there as well. But there's guidelines on that here and here as well.

On that note, I'll say that it is sometimes hard to find the guidelines because wiki has both the public facing articles and the "behind the curtain" guideline and discussion pages and it's often hard to specify which one you're searching for. I might search for "wikipedia spaces after period" but search results would give me the wiki article about sentence spacing while the page about wikipedia's preferred style for editors might be buried in the later search results (though in this case they're not). One thing you can do is use wikipedia's search function and, when you're looking at the search results, click the bar that says "Search in:", which is two lines below the blue Search button. You can untick the Articles box and tick the Discussion and General help boxes so you're looking only at the behind the scenes stuff. I also often use google and search for "wikipedia guidelines xyz" or "wikipedia manual of style xyz". Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! That pay reference was to another writer's work; I've read the cautions but I'm not getting paid for this. I somehow did start it as an article for consideration but I was following prompts and I'm not sure why that showed up. I pasted some copy in from a Word document that I'm now concerned could have been read as a copy-and-paste of source material, because I had copied a different Wikipedia page into Word to use as a template long before I actually tried to enter my copy on Wikipedia. When I did, I copied and pasted from my Word page — with new copy instead of the original I'd copied. But I suppose that might have complicated my effort.

I have definitely noticed what a labyrinth Wikipedia is regarding guidelines, guides, etc. I found one page titled "The Missing Manual." Except it's not a page. It's a book!

I have jpg and PDF copies of the clips in question. But I need to verify they exist in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer archive, and that's proving troublesome. If I lived in Ohio, I could access them through the library system there. My library card is expired; there's nothing in the wayback machine for these articles and this is getting incredibly frustrating for an ADD-afflicted person. I don't even know if I'd be allowed to upload individual 28-year-old articles published by a newspaper because they may still hold the copyright.

Plus, I can't find a way to upload them to archive.org. I set up an account, but of course, their link to "getting started with uploading" comes up as a 404 error. Everywhere I turn, there's another freakin' roadblock!

As for Muckrack, I can't load someone else's work onto my page ..

I know allmusic.com is a legit reference source because I see it all the time in Wikipedia, but how about discogs? TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1, discogs is generally unreliable as its content is user-generated - see its entry on the perennial sources list. And you're correct about the newspaper articles probably still being under copyright, but you don't need to upload copies; you can simply cite them using the info you have and {{cite news}}. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The stumbling block here is that the articles came from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer newspaper reporter who wrote them. I have a pdf of a clip and a Word doc of the text as it appeared in the paper's archive years ago. I don't have a url, and he no longer has access to that archive — which may not even have those 28-year-old clips. Several years back, the company where I held my last full-time newspaper job decided to wipe its archives of anything before 2000 — thereby removing all evidence of my 5½ years there. (I left in 1999.) That's the situation for about 70 percent of my decades-long journalism career. Only one newspaper out of several for which I worked full time is archived. All of the bylines for two magazines I contributed to regularly for 10 years were wiped by an incompetent web designer. I wrote for Rollingstonedotcom for six years; they archived about six of my stories. This is typical for many veteran journalists, and terribly depressing.

But the Cleveland Public Library apparently has a Plain-Dealer archive accessible by cardholders or Ohio residents. I'm working on having someone access it for me.

Still, if I can't use Discogs or IMDb (which I saw on someone's page just yesterday), that eliminates two information sources I used to electronically confirm information from actual CDs and non-archived clips. So do I cut information that makes this page more complete — especially the discography I spent ages putting together — or do I leave it on there amid enough other solid references that support my overall credibility as an information gatherer?

～～～～ TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1, unfortunately, yes - cut the information if you can't properly source it. But I'm not sure you quite understood what I said above; sources do not need to be in online archives. You don't need to provide a url. If you have an article title, publication name, and publication date, you have enough. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't pick up on that, but thank you very, very much. Because I just learned the Ohio library has the clips in question on microfilm, not electronically stored. TexasEditor1 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, you don't need to electronically confirm information you get from CD jackets and the like. Those are primary sources which can be cited like any other primary source. Quoting from our policy: "For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." 174.21.23.32 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@TexasEditor1 Sorry, I didn't see this post! Ughh, I feel your pain, wikipedia can be....dangerous for those of us with executive function issues. I think the copy pasting you did was fine and won't be thought of as plagiarizing since you're replacing the text with your own content. I have to do it all the time when my wiki code doesn't work and I'm not sure why lol.

Haha I see what you mean with the Missing Manual, that there's the wiki article on the book and a wikipedia style guide page that gives instructions/advice on editing articles. And if you search for The Missing Manual wikipedia on google, they show up right next to each other.

I was away for a bit but I'm sorry for the confusion about online sources. The other editor w/ IP 174.21.23.32 is correct, you don't have to have the source available in an online archive or accessible via internet. Like, if it was in any recently written book, no one expects there to be access to it online (unless you buy the ebook). Same thing for the newspapers and the CD jackets (I didn't know that policy). If you could upload pictures of them, that'd be nice and all but it's definitely not necessary. I'm really sorry if I gave the impression that you absolutely had to upload them :( ). If something was printed/published/exists, you can cite it.

My nitpickiness about having archived links is because, for a lot of the sources I usually use, they're online only and/or unlikely to have remaining physical copies. When a website goes down or undergoes renovation, unless someone archived those pages, that stuff is gone. With books and CD covers, there are generally still copies floating around that someone could get hold of if they wanted to. Since I'm writing about military stuff, if the manufacturer takes the specifications or descriptions down from the website, the only other sources out there would be the technical manual, the item itself, or company/government records. Access to those can be difficult.

One other reason I like archives is that they're useful for clarifying things. Like, if I see something that's written in a way that's not incorrect but is frustratingly vague, I'll want to look at the source it's citing. So that's where I'm coming from. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks … I'm using visual editor, which creates most of my references automatically. You're suggesting I back up any possibly ephemeral refs by uploading screenshots to the Web archive. So anything that has an archive page will link to that page instead of the original … TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

European Collectivity of Alsace

Departmental councils of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin were replaced by Assembly of Alsace in January 2021 but in the articles on Departmental council (France) and List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the change isn't mentioned; no note that specifies that such a change occured or no addition or replacement in the table. So what should be done? Same is with the councils of Haute-Corse and Corse-du-Sud, they were replaced by the Corsican Assembly. Also to make it clear that these departments still exist, but their legislatures were replaced. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Excellenc1, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, I did ask, but the problem with talk pages is that they take forever to reply. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I started to reply here, but instead posted at the Wikiproject, where it won't be archived so quickly. Short answer: I think it's worth mentioning under History, and updating the lead paragraph. Thanks for bringing it to wider attention, I have started to learn about these special Assemblies in the process! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Who the hell keeps tagging my sandbox as a WP:FAKEARTICLE?

I made a sandbox basically just saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Enyclopedia' and someone added a {{db-u1}} tag up the article. It's not even a fake article. Of course, as expected, it got deleted just today. I swear someone here is trolling me. Oh and by the way if you don't know what {{db-u1}} is it's a tag for fake articles or hoaxes, and once added will alert the administrators of wikipedia to delete it. Ryj430 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You added it, both times EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ryj430. I think you are mistaken. {{db-u1}} is to do with requesting deletion of a personal user page (See WP:U1), which you placed, twice. Hoaxes and fake articles are {{db-g3}} (See WP:G3). Aidan9382 _(talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Some random IP user left a message on my talk page that it is a fake article. They said i should add the {{db-u1}} tag to the top of the page to be deleted. Ryj430 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No one else "tagged" your sandbox. An IP left a message on your Talk page (incorrectly) claiming that it was a fake article, and you added the {{db-u1}} tag in response. The {{db-u1}} tag indicates that the creator of the page is requesting its deletion. It was subsequently deleted in response to your request.General Ization ^Talk 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Like it said, i recently made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and when i came back there was a {{db-u1}} tag up there. Of course, as expected it got deleted within a few days. Ryj430 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The IP's motive for posting the erroneous message on your Talk page will not be known to anyone here. As for how the {{db-u1}} was added to the page, your own response to the IP said you were going to add it, and the page history indicated that you were the one who did so. It would seem the best thing to do at this point would be to either recreate the page if you wish to, or don't. General Ization ^Talk 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@General Ization and @Ryj430, I am the IP who left the message, and it was not erroneous - @Ryj430 had been repeatedly posting an elaborate fake article in their sandbox, which I noticed after they asked a question here. I added the alert to their talk page and they {{db-u1}}'d the sandbox. They then re-created their sandbox page with innocuous content and {{db-u1}}'d that too. I do agree that something odd is going on. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct, and the account by Ryj430 is incomplete and misleading. As an administrator, I can view the deleted content. Ryj430 wrote a totally fake article about the nonexistent "Battle of Egastura Strait". Please explain yourself, Ryj430. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What i mean here is that i recently just made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and it had a {{db-u1}} tag when i came back. And as expected, it got deleted a few days later. I would like to know who is doing this. Ryj430 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. IT WAS MY LITTLE BROTHER WHO {{DB-U1}}'D THE SANDBOX.. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and i truly apologize. I'm sorry. Ryj430 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It was my little brother who keeps adding the tags. Thank you for alerting me. He's gonna pay for this. I apologize for this inconvenience. Ryj430 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I know how you feel. When I was younger, my little brother repeatedly fed my homework to the dog. Jokes aside, I imagine that you will now take steps to keep you brother out of your account. ;) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:India-related topics in Philippines

Please can someone work out why and fix the in-template edit of Template:India-related topics in Philippines opens Template:India-related topics in Philippines topics to be edited instead of Template:India-related topics in Philippines -- PBS (talk)▪ PBS (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@PBS Fixed, this template uses {{Country topics}} as a base, which assumes the template title will be of the form "Template:[Country] topics". I've added a |template_name parameter to override this. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. — PBS (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@PBS FYI, I've opened a discussion at the template talk page to try to figure out why this template has such a complex method of filling in the "template name" parameter. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is an active WikiProject listed as defunct when its WikiProject template is placed on other pages

Hello, I was looking at the Abortion in Kentucky article, which is in need of copyediting, and on the talk page Talk:Abortion in Kentucky I noticed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion banner at the top says "(defunct)". This struck me as very odd, given that abortion is a very active topic at the center of many ongoing political events in the United States currently (July 2022) and I would expect this WikiProject to be very active.

When I checked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion page, it had |status=active at the top of the page, indicating this is an active wikiproject: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abortion&oldid=1075906419

However, when the wikiproject template {{WikiProject Abortion}} is transcluded on other pages, the WikiProject is listed as (defuct), see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Abortion&oldid=1013810835

Can someone please explain why the template {{WikiProject Abortion}} lists the WikiProject as defunct, while the WikiProject page Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion itself is tagged as active?

Thanks.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Figured it out: the status=active on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion page was not reflected in the template, which had manually set status=defunct. I was able to correct this. Yay!!! -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The talk page mentions a discussion where this WikiProject was considered for deletion in March 2021, but the outcome of the discussion was Keep. Guess the template was not updated? Anyway fixed now. -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

My student and I both tried submitting an article on an investor he did in depth research on

 Courtesy link: Draft:Brett Coulter
At first, the draft was declined for being advertisement and my student tried making it sound unbiased as did I. And once again it was rejected, would anyone mind reviewing the draft if i post it here Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It has been reviewed a number of times, declined, rejected and deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: There's too much info that's either trivial or not about him. Also, the constant use of the personal "Brett" is jarring and unencyclopedic. Blow it up and try again, with the 8-10 best independent third party sources about him, and include only info that is in the sources. Avoid editorializing or explaining the underlying economic situation. You're probably only going to get one more chance, so good luck! You can always ping me for feedback before resubmitting. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. Note that the draft was rejected, not declined. Declined means the article is not suitable for mainspace at the moment. This means that after making edits to fix the problems, you may resubmit the article for review. If the article is rejected, the draft cannot be resubmitted unless you completely rewrite the draft. I recommend complete rewrite of the article, also check Wikipedia:GNG to make sure the article is notable. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Professor. I'm afraid that you and your student are making the common but wrong assumption that Wikipedia is at all interested in what the subject (or their associates) wants the world to know about them: it isn't. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable places). So, for example, the section about The John Thiessen Charity does not belong in an article about Coulter unless somebody unconnected with Coulter or the charity has published an article talking about his contribution to it. ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A student and a professor, "P.H.D." (!), worked on this article? It's strange that we don't see any sign of the "student" in the revision history. With its random capitalization, a sentence fragment with no verb and no period (full stop) in the very lede, bad punctuation such as using a semicolon where a colon was clearly called for, as in "creating new securities that were sold in a variety of packages known as;" followed by a list, writing "Than in 2002 CEO Sanford I. Weill & Citicorp CEO John S. Reed..." when "Then" was meant, all just for starters, this submission is terribly written. It's hard to believe anyone could think this is a good piece of work; it's almost as if the "author" didn't read it. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Or they read it but don't have a firm command of the intricacies of English grammar. Either way, it's not a good look. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the terrible grammar, the bulk of this massively refbombed spam fest is actually unsourced - the sources included are not about the subject, even remotely, save for maybe 5. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that "school project" is a ruse, the "student" doesn't exist, and that Caldwell should be required to disclose their association with Coulter or any firm he may have hired for PR? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but I was trying to be polite, which took a real effort with this shoddy bit of work. I also noticed that the editor uploaded images as his own work under the name CitiGroupREP, as PRAXIDICAE pointed out. Pretty lame. I'm glad that this person has been indefinitely blocked for advertising, so that we don't waste any more time with it. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: Sort of beside the point at hand, but you might care to know that the letters you're appending to your name are supposed to stand for "philosophiae doctor," that being Latin for Doctor of Philosophy. So the correct abbreviation might be PhD or Ph.D., but it would NEVER be P.H.D. The Ph. together stands for something; the H. by itself does not. You might want to, uhm, have a look at your diploma and see how the, uhm, granting institution of higher learning presents it. Then get all your checks and business cards reprinted, to avoid professional embarrassment. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Funny comment about the, uhm, diploma. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea but the original "student" editor uploaded all the images as their own work under the name CitiGroupREP. I've culled the article down to the sources that actually mention him. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(!) indeed, @Carlstak. Anyone who has a Ph.D. should know how to spell Ph.D. (there are two accepted ways). P.H.D. is, of course, not one of the ways. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see @User:AzseicsoK's post 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please review Jean-René Lecerf?

I recently added a ton of stuff to this article, so just to assure myself that there are no problems with it, can someone please review the article once? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a reviewer, but it looks good to me. Do we really need three pictures of him? He looks the same in all of them, and they're all from 2009. Maproom (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maproom, I didn't think of that but maybe I'll keep it because the article looks pretty boring otherwise. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thelma Montgomery

i'd like to look into 1950's LA model & actress Thelma Montgomery.She was in(1954)Girl Gang movie;a 50's low budget reefer/crime movie that's hilarious by todays standards. Film2buff (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Film2buff: Wonderful! Maybe you'll be able to gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of her, and determine whether she meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Girl Gang. I notice that the IMDB (not a Reliable source, but usually indicative), has no information about her other than her appearance (as an un-named "Gang girl") in this one movie, which is not a good sign for her notability as an actress. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How to VfD a page

How do I list a page for deletion on VfD here? I tried {{vfd-new}} but it didn't work. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That depends on what kind of page it is, Ilovemydoodle. Take a look at Template:Deletion tools. -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

how to source old audio (AIR - all india radio) and television interviews

The article i've submitted was rejected for the "significant coverage" required while, most related articles are on television/audio dated long ago, where social media wasn't as prevalent as today. How do i source it? Normalcy (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Normalcy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{cite episode}} to cite television and radio episodes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Teal Swan Article

I have been looking at the Teal Swan article to see if there are things that need to be changed or made better and I noticed that the discussion that took place said that the article should be deleted and that was in 2015 and the article has not been deleted so do I just leave it alone and not do anything to it? I just dont want to be against policy so that is why I am asking, OhioGirl42986 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

OhioGirl42986, the current version of Teal Swan was created in 2018. There have been many edits to it since then; an unusually high proportion of them have been reverted. Very few Wikipedia articles are perfect, and this one has room for improvement. But I see you've made few contributions to articles, so I'd advise you to keep away from this controversial subject until you have more experience. Maproom (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How to deal with someone following me around and being disruptive

Hello. I am a Japanese and have been trying to edit articles on Wikipedia regarding Japanese topics that have serious issues due to lack of editors with knowledge on the topics: Many such articles have been allowed to present false and at times outlandishly ridiculous information at times. Fixing these requires some drastic measures due to how bad the articles are (WP:BOLD). However, another user has been following me around to multiple articles and questioning my edits, disrupting my efforts at every step. This has happened multiple times. I brought this up before and their excuse was that they were watching the pages I'm editing to begin with, but in the latest instance doujinshi convention almost nobody had been editing the article, and that user only started to appear after I started work on it. Furthermore, I stopped editing it after I got sick of having to deal with them, and they immediately stopped editing it too, giving me the impression that their sole purpose on that article was to interfere with my edits. This user has also gone around accusing me of being a sockpuppet and claiming that I'm pushing original research (for making factual statements which are easily verified, or questioning ridiculous statements which are obviously false). My edits to remove false and at times plainly nonsensical statements was met with them insisting that statements with sources cannot be removed, my edits to add the most basic of information were met with reverts and accusations of using original research. Even if I was unable to add a source at the time for this basic information, would it not be better to leave the statement and just add a citation needed tag so that someone else might be able to add a source in the future? I want to add that the sort of edits they have done to the articles I tried to work on seem to show that they have no experience or knowledge regarding the topics at all, so I really don't see any reason why such a person should keep trying to disrupt my efforts. It would be one thing if someone with knowledge is arguing a different point of view, but that is not the case here. The only justification they offer is "that's how it's done on Wikipedia" and insisting that if a statement has a source then it cannot be removed, no matter how obviously ridiculous the statement. Is this not WP:HOUND, if not outright harassment? 2404:2D00:5000:701:EC0C:C140:2DBA:4512 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Articles should be based on reliable published sources, not on the beliefs of editors. If a statement is contested, and no source is cited for it, it should be removed until a source can be found. Statements that are supported by reliable sources should be retained, until better sources that contradict them can be found. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if you can show that a source has been used which does not support the statement, then it's perfectly OK to remove it. I'd then advise making a clear EDITSUMMARY to explain why you've removed it. And even think about making an explanation in the article's talk page. That way your actions are covered, and the other editor is required to explain/justify why they disagree with your actions. Everything here is recorded, so you can use that to your advantage if every step you make is explained and justifiable. Sadly, rather like racism in the real world, Wikipedia editors tend to distrust IP editors. That is unfair, so to counteract that horrible bias, do be as clear and careful as possible in each step you take. Registering for a free account is certainly a good idea, but by no means essential. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I have always detailed my edits and explained them in detail on the talk pages of articles I edit. The user who is following me around frequently reverts my edits without looking at them. This same user has been previously warned for falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and still follows me around to disrupt my edits and go around posting on talk pages gaslighting me. When I previously pointed out they were following me around, they said I am editing articles that they were watching to begin with. But they do not edit the articles until I touch them, only start to do so to disrupt me when I do, and then cease editing the articles immediately after I stop. It seems to me this user is only doing this to spite me, perhaps because I called them out for the false sockpuppet accusation and they took offense at being called out. Can nothing be done about this? 2404:2D00:5000:701:445E:364:385F:B1EC (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, IPv6 user. Whilst in no way taking sides with anyone, the answer is 'Yes' there is a way for anyone having evidence of another user WP:HOUNDING them to get action taken. First off, it's always wise to try to engage and directly question another editor on their talk page about their interactions with you.

So, imagine if I were the one causing you a problem, there could easily be a misunderstanding that a conversation with me on my talk page could help us resolve. Have you tried doing that? Always be polite, reasonable and attempt to understand my viewpoint, whilst also carefully explaining yours to me. Give WP:DIFFS to show what you did and why, and offer further diffs to show what I did to revert and how it might appear that I'm following you around in an unacceptable manner. Then let me explain what I was doing, and why. Talking is cheap, and should be easy between just two people.

Having failed to resolve your concerns with me, you could then take the big step of making a complaint against me at WP:ANI. Again, we would require you to provide clear evidence via DIFFS of the edits you made an an IP and or registered user, and further DIFFS to demonstrate why my actions were incompatible with expected behaviour, and that I'm clearly hounding you.

Expect to not only have their edits looked at, but all yours, too. (This, for example, is not the best way to leave messages as you've made accusations yourself about another editor having 'victims'.) Because you have an IPv6 address, your actual Ip address changed all the time within the /64 range, so it's hard for me to use an editor interaction tool for me to quickly check. I assume much of the issues you are concerned about happened here? Other users will come in and look at all those diffs and offer their views, and an administrator may then decide no action is needed, or take appropriate action against either party - or both in some cases. One or both parties might need to consider the outcome and modify their behaviour according to the expectations we have of collegiate working.

You should be aware that if someone makes bold edits to clear up issues ("drastic measures" you called them, above), then it often happens that other editors think they are being made in bad faith. They may then check up on future edits that that person makes to ensure no harm comes to other articles. (I do that kind of thing all the time if I spot unusual edits being made that make me question the reason for them) If you continue acting 'boldly', but without clear explanations, then it's normal for another editor to keep a gentle eye on your edits for a while until they're reassured.

Your own contributions across multiple addresses in the range do show that you don't often leave edit summaries. When we see an IP address doing that, it does tend to add to any suspicion of a bad faith edit, even if it actually wasn't justified. So always try to be clear with every edit summary what it is you're doing, and why. Discuss [WP:BOLD]] changes on an article talk page first and gain consensus for them, if you can. It would help if you were to register for a free user account here, but that is not obligatory. If you do already have a user account, you should not be editing from an IP address as well, especially if it comes across on a talk page that you are two people, when you're only actually one. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Name change

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I am trying to change the name of the rock pile to Georgia Falls my niece drown there june 7 2017 i have a love hate relationship woth the place but she absolutely loved it there.i was told on 2017 o had to wait 5 years its been 5 years ive contacted ngon through email and cant seem to get anywhere if its a process or a something i need that will take time i would like to get it started ive seen where they've vhanged road names for people who died on the street.please contact me with information on what to do.you can research it Georgia faith Myrick drown at the rock pile june 7th 2017 at the age of 12 143.55.241.124 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you're trying to change the title of an article on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Article titles to see what is considered when determining a title, especially Wikipedia:Common names. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. I am very sorry for your loss, but Wikipedia has no ability to make name changes, other than to reflect and follow what public usage shows. Thus Kiev was changed here to Kyiv, following world-wide use of the Ukrainian spelling, evidenced by that spelling being adopted in mainstream media. Should a community agree to change a placename, we might follow in due course, but not usually immediately. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Errors in an article

Yes, please, on the article about John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach there are, I think 2 errors on his ancestry 10. John George I of Solms-Laubach (= 28.) and 11. Margaret of Schönburg-Glauchau (= 29.). It may be my browser but there is no number higher than 15 on the tree. Thank you, Jeff 97.67.84.14 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach - 174.21.23.32 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The "(=28.)" and "(=29.)" seem to be errors, maybe the result of copying from some other family tree. I'll delete them. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The tree had one more generation earlier and the two people appeared in two places due to inbreeding.[12] The numbers indicated their other appearance. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia search of repetition of a string

In Wikipedia's search engine, how do I search fo all pages that contain a certain string more than a certain number of times? Like say I wanted to search for all pages that mention the word "cats" many times, how could I search for all pages that contain at least 50 "cats" strings? I have read guides for searching on Wikipedia, but could not find anything describing how to do this. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you'd have to do a custom quarry of some sort. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SQLREQ can help/ 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: The normal search box can do it with insource using regex if the count is for source occurrences: "cats" insource:/(cats.*){50}/ It's expensive if the string occurs in a lot of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about sources

Hello, may I use Britannica as a source if I support it with aditional sources ? I have found it here on WP:RSN that it is realible [[13]] especially if supported by secondary sources, but still I am getting reverted. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:24 03.July 2022 (UTC)

User:Theonewithreason - It would help if you provided a link or diff to the edit that was reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

here is the link [[14]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 00:41 04.July 2022 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: You were asked to provide a link to the Wikipedia edit that was reverted (not a link to the Britannica source). GoingBatty (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry here is the link [[15]] with my 2 edits one is of Britannica and another from Veselinovic university professor, here is the link where editor reverted me [[16]], I also have one additional source presented on tp that I did not use in editing and one that was removed.Theonewithreason (talk) 01:49 04.July 2022 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: The best thing would be to discuss with Alltan whether in this case Britannica is the best that can be found. It is better not to use another encyclopaedia as a source for Wikipedia, but in my view it's better to have a source than no source. It might be that the two of you can arrive at an understanding, or find a secondary source. Elemimele (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Elemimele! We are currently in the process of discussing and reviewing sources.Alltan (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Tool that lists top contributors to an article?

The history of a Wikipedia article contains many contributors, most of them are minor (e.g. typo correction or adding a link). Usually there are a handful of major contributors. Is there an automatic way to get a list of major contributors to a Wikipedia page? (This question was first posted here by somoene else, and it is a question I have as well and that I am asking again here. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

here you go. Accessible from page history - view statistics. Slywriter (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter, great, thank you! that's the perfect answer to my question. And it is a very cool tool! Al83tito (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Get past paywalls for WSJ, NYT, and similar

I remember seeing a notice somewhere that I am eligible to use a big reference library because I am extended-confirmed. I can't find the notice now. But I did once try said library, and its complication actually confused me. All I want to do is read paywalled articles in NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and similar mainstream publications. Can I do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, what you're looking for is at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ . I've never found a way to access anything useful, such as the New York Times, through it; though that may just be my incompetence. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Adoring nanny I get a free subscription to newspapers.com via the Wikipedia reference library, but the three periodicals you are interested in are not included in the available newspapers. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

ProQuest via the Wikipedia Library includes NYT, WSJ, and WaPo. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Trying to Publish

Draft:Theater Talk

Hi I have had significant trouble creating this page, because it keeps getting flagged for conflict of interest and notability violations. I have done my best to iron out these concerns, but I don't know what is wrong with the page at this point. I have posted on my talk page that I dont have a financial conflict of interest and I have included several notable citations on the page. Please help me with any other changes i need to do before I submit this for its final review and publishing.

Thanks! Musterdman (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Musterdman: Welcome to the Teahouse. While you may not have a paid relationship with the subject, you definitely have a conflict of interest with them, as you have demonstrated in this diff's edit summary (We are the producers of the show and we are independent from CUNY at this time) and the declaration on your talk page (I offered my help and advice to them urging the producers to create profiles across the web such as facebook fan pages, improving their youtube presence and so forth). IMDb isn't considered a reliable source due to its user-generated content, so using it won't help you. I don't see the .pdfs establishing notability; they're at most passing mentions (with one leading to a YouTube video on an interview). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems unfair, I am not a priducer of the show, I originally said that because i was trying to help the producers of the show, who i am a fan of. I'm actually just someone who watched the show and i decided to help them voluntarily. All i did was get historical information from them about the show so I could make the article. I wish someone would just tell me an answer about how Theater Talk can get up on Wikipedia. it deserves to have a page Musterdman (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Musterdman: Misrepresenting yourself (especially when you insinuate your account is shared, which contravenes Wikipedia policy) will not endear you to reviewers, and subjects only get articles if their notability (as Wikipedia defines it) is established, no matter how much anyone thinks it's "deserved". Perhaps making a website to memorialise/archive Theater Talk is something you could do, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a memorial or a webhost. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Musterdman. "To help the producers of the show" is, in itself, a conflict of interest. A Wikipedia article is for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers. Any benefit for the subject is incidental - and some subjects definitely do not benefit from the existence of an article about them (see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). If you are writing an article for the benefit of the subject, that may distort your neutrality. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

help

i am bad at writing. what would be the fastest way to get better, given the specific flaws of the way in which i currently write? 77.115.167.207 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about your writing in general, I don't think anybody here is going to be able to help you. If you are talking about problems in your contributions to Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you indicated what the problems are. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this article within the scope of Wikipedia?

Hello everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia though my account is old, cause I forgot I'd created it.

Anyway, I was categorizing articles when I came across this Arrowsnake. I'm not certain if Wikipedia is the right place for such a topic. It seems to be more fitting for a dictionary, and I don't think it's notable enough, but I might be wrong, so I'm here asking.

Thank you. Have a great day. TheFaeryMuse (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheFaeryMuse: Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like someone has already proposed the article to be deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheFaeryMuse You are completely correct. To expand on Trnryuu's answer a bit - we have a specific policy that says that dictionary definitions are not suitable content for this project - WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Dictionary entries can be added to our sister project wiktionary. If you come across similar pages in the future there are a number of ways of dealing with them - you can propose them for deletion (WP:Guide to deletion) you can merge them into another article (WP:Merge) you can redirect them to another page that discusses the topic in an encyclopedic manner (WP:Redirect) or you may be able to expand the page into a proper article. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

royal express travels

hi i am realy work hard but still i am not campleted my job Royalairshow (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, Royalairshow, go ahead and ask it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Royalairshow: I don't think this is the right place to ask. Maybe ask your manager? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Royalairshow: If your job involves editing Wikipedia you must comply with WP:PAID RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Policies and guide on defunct Wiki pages

Hello, for non-mainspace wiki pages (pages within the internal workings of Wikipedia, such as essays, user pages, policy pages, project pages, and a long etcetera) is there an information page or policy page that provides an overview of Wikipedia's approach to preservation and deletion/cleanup of those old pages? I have come accross bits and pieces in different places. For example, the existence of the Template:Historical. Or, the Template:Deceased Wikipedian and related Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. I have found lots of "breadcrumbs" of information about it, but never an overarching explanatory/policy article. Is there one? I am not a newbie but there is still so much I don't know and I am wondering if someone here can shed some light on this question. Also, if this is a question better addressed in a different forum, I'd welcome you pointing me in the right direction. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Al83tito I think WP:HISTORICAL and WP:HISPAGES are the information you are looking for? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.85 thank you for your response. I was seeking a more overarching policy (for example, I think the two links you kindly point to are silent about what is the policy on retaining userpages of deceased wikipedians). I am finding bits and pieces here and there, but not a unified policy or explainer page on long-term preservation of old/defunct pages. If someone knows if this is indeed the case (that there isn't a comprehensive page on the topic) or the opposite, I'd appreciate dropping a note here. Thanks! Al83tito (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe consensus is to leave them alone. Hoary may be able to provide better insight. Slywriter (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Who, me? Speaking as somebody who's old and defunct, my reaction is "If there seems to be (or likely to be) a problem arising from this, then what's the problem; and if there isn't, then why worry about the matter?" (Life's too short....) -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Al83tito I don't think there is an overarching policy covering every case, this is a situation where what happens to pages is decided on a case by case by common sense and/or the WP:MFD process. The fundamental question you have to ask is "is this page going to be useful in the future?" Policies and guidelines that are frequently cited are kept to avoid breaking the references to them in discussions, old user pages are kept as a mark of respect, old dispute resolution processes are kept in case the information could be useful in the future (e.g. arbcom proceedings). On the other hand pages that were never used, essays that are grossly wrong or inappropriate and stuff that has no relation to wikipedia is frequently deleted. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.85 thank you, I appreciate your own overview. That's helpful. Cheers. Al83tito (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How did I trip edit filters? Is there something I should do to fix these edits?

Hi friends,

New and learning here. I came across this log showing “edit filters” that seemed to be tripped by edits I made. Can you help me understand what I may have done incorrectly in these two cases so that I can hopefully fix any issues and avoid in the future? I have made good-faith efforts to edit a variety of pages in my first couple of days on here, and don’t wish to do any damage to the work so many have already done.

Your guidance is sincerely appreciated!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Informationageuser

03:24, 4 July 2022: Informationageuser (talk | contribs)triggered filter 878, performing the action "edit" on Zettle. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: New user removing COI template (details | examine | diff)

04:41, 3 July 2022: Informationageuser (talk | contribs)triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Binders full of women. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Refspam detection (diff) Informationageuser (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really experienced with edit filters, but the hit of filter 878 looks like a false positive. I'm not sure about the other filter hit either. It looks like it's private (so I can't view its details), but I'm not sure. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weeklyd3 do these links help you see them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/32931913

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1096228365 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationageuser (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but the refspam detection filter that the older edit hit is private, so I can't view it. However, I think this might be a false positive. You may want to report it. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

what to do if someone accused you of sockpupet which you are nowhere connected to?

3 days ago someone added an accusation on me for being a sockpupet of someone because I created an article about a South African musician which seemed it was created by a user before who was blocked for sockpupettry, I want to know how to handle such situations and prove myself innocent. Emkay2004 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Emkay2004. I couldn't really see any accusations of sockpuppetry on your talk page. Could you please provide a link to the accusation? Thanks so much! weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 19:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Emkay2004 sometimes people jump to conclusions about things. If you are not a sock puppet of that user then don't pay attention to it maybe the person who accused you is a sock puppet looking to divert suspicion away from them. As long as you are not a sockpupet do not give up if you are sure that you are right. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is awful advice. They were accused of sock puppetry by an extremely long term editor in good standing, the speculations that the accuser is a sock are frankly laughable. Why do you start off telling the accused to "ignore" the accusation, then finish up telling them to "not give up", in fact what is the last sentence even supposed to mean?

@Emkay2004 Please read the guidance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims and follow the instructions given. You seem to have recreated an article which has been a long term target of a spam editing company, which has resulted in you being suspected of being an employee of said company. Stay calm and try not to take it personally. If you decide to respond follow the advice in that guidance and write your response in a polite manner that clearly explains why you would have come across this page and how the overlap could have occurred. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Weeklyd3 here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevence SA you should also see [17] I saw an article here about her so I thought she was notable to be on Wikipedia and never knew that she was created by a sockpupet zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emkay2004 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

G7

It would be interesting to know how popular the G7 leaders are back home. Could it be that we are pushed to ww3 by leaders who do not enjoy a majority at home? Regit321 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Regit321: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Regit321. However interesting your question is, I'm afraid that it is not appropriate here on the Teahouse. In fact, I don't think it's appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for discussion. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The question may be asked in Quora.202.142.67.224 (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an appropriate question for the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Good articles

I have submitted several articles for review all have been rejected. I understand that something is wrong with them but more than half of them have been rejected by S0091 and Dan Arndt. I feel a bit concerned about the possibility of stalking. I would like to know what I should do about my concerns? History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, History Buff1239ubj. The two editors you mentioned are both highly experienced and both heavily involved with reviewing drafts. You, on the other hand, are an inexperienced editor who has been writing and submitting low quality drafts. So, what you should do is read and study Your first article, and stop submitting poor quality drafts like Draft:A good Karate warmup. That just wastes the time of reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will do as you recommended. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@History Buff1239ubj Accusing another editor of stalking is an extremely serious allegation on wikipedia - if you are going to accuse another editor of this kind of misconduct you are expected to provide evidence to support your claims, otherwise your comments will be treated as a personal attack on the other editor - this is called casting aspersions. Personally I see no evidence whatsoever of any kind of stalking going on here - an editor who is active in draft review rejecting multiple obviously problematic drafts in quick succession is a completely normal part of the process.

Having had a look at the drafts you've written to date I completely agree with the rejections and echo the comments from Cullen above. You really need to read WP:Your first article WP:Notability WP:Verifiability and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Draft:Ancient Jaws - An unfinished, unpublished book that you are in the process of writing is not notable (WP:N) and there are WP:COI issues with you using wikipedia to promote it. Draft:A good Karate warmup - Wikipedia is not a place for instruction or guidance (WP:NOTGUIDE). Draft:Soviet Battleship Sovetsky Soyuz This is completely unsourced (WP:V) and cannot be moved to article space or merged into another article as is. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

And in any case, all of the information in that last stub draft is already in the existing article Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship (with minor differences, but sourced). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions and page restrictions

Is there a tool I can use that will pop up a "HEY DUMMY, READ THE DS PAGE RESTRICTION NOTICE" if page restrictions are in effect? I have luckily avoided accidental trangressions, but today I was surprised to learn I've just never noticed the 24 hr BRD restriction at Donal Trump. My bad, like a lot of regulars the templates get tuned out eventually. I'd like an opt in tool to help overcome this bit of my human nature. Do we have one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about primary sources vs very loosely on-topic secondary sources for BLPs

The Technoblade page states that he had adhd, and previously the only sources stating that were two tweets from the subject before his death and an article that mentions his adhd in passing. An edit purged most of the primary sources, leaving a super indirect secondary source about twitter drama, which seems to be more about angry mobs either attacking or defending Technoblade over a deleted tweet he made years prior to the drama.

Pinknews is considered a reliable source and was the only reliable secondary source found talking about Technoblade's adhd, which is fair, and the article is remarkably unbiased, but I feel like an article about angry mobs talking about the subject instead of the actual subject is super awkward. I tried replacing it with other sources that unfortunately also only mentioned his adhd in passing but were actually about Technoblade instead of angry twitter people, which were removed for being unreliable.

I'm now considering if reinstating the twitter sources would be reliable since they come from the subject himself, according to WP:V, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. However, I'm also wondering if because of the lack of any meaningful secondary coverage, it would be better to simply remove the mention of his adhd, or if it should be kept since it was one of the few personal details Technoblade revealed before his death. I know this may come across as forum shopping, but I would like to know how to deal with this type of situation for future reference on other pages. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles about the recently deceased are subject to "BLP" constraints. I suggest that you post this question at WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding class to new article

I noticed that the talk page has changed for new articles. Where do I assign class, importance, and wikiprojects now? MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thinks "Eh, what?" But it seems that you're right, MauraWen. Instead of "editing" a blank talk page, it seems that you now "create" a new talk page. And this is where you plonk the WikiProject templates, presumably in just the same way you've previously done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thx. Hoary I think I understand. When I am prompted to create a new talk page, adding the typical talk page info (wikiprojects, class, etc) to the description box makes sense. What would you recommend that I put in the subject field? I want to be consistent with creating all my future talk pages. MauraWen (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

MauraWen, you don't need a header -- I mean, something like the "== Adding class to new article ==" above -- for this purpose. Indeed, a header is unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some guideline somewhere asks you not to use one. In my perhaps minority opinion, WikiProject templates have a low signal-to-noise ratio, and I recommend that you compact them. Here -- {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= {{WikiProject Photography |history=yes |class=Start |importance=High}} {{WikiProject North East England |class=stub |importance= }} {{WikiProject Finland |class=stub |importance= }} {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=stub|a&e-work-group=yes|needs-photo=|listas=Konttinen, Sirkka-Liisa}} {{WikiProject Women artists|class=stub}} }} -- is what I'd call a good example (from Talk:Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen): the visual clutter is compacted; what each says remains available for those people who opt to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hoary Thanks! This morning it appears that the subject line/header is no longer required. That makes it easier for me. MauraWen (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@MauraWen When you're on a non-existent talk page you can also use the "create" tab in the upper right, which opens the old style editor. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mobile

Why doesn't every language edition of Wikipedia have a mobile view option? Hgh1985 (talk) Hgh1985 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 They should do, it's enabled for all wmf sites! Can you tell us which project you're having the issue on? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Will my article be granted if I add sources?

I have prepared an article for Wikipedia with proper information from sources like INDIA BOOK OF RECORDS,TELEGRAPH INDIA,Alternative Record UK,Guinness Book,THE TIMES OF INDIA . Information are collected from the official website.

Is my article prepared from these sources reliable enough to be granted by admins ? Because earlier my article was rejected suspecting that I'm promoting someone although I'm not concerned with that topic nor the person. Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj, it'd be easier to answer your question if you provided a link to the draft you're asking about. In any case, the Times of India is not a reliable source, it publishes whatever people pay it to. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide Link

Please give me the link of the page where I can submit draft article for article of creation submission Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj Hello and welcome. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for a review, just click the button in the box I added. This information is provided automatically if you use Articles for Creation to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Is my article perfect to be added in wikipedia? What you think Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not have a chance right now to thoroughly review it; if you submit it for a review, a reviewer will look at it carefully and make a determination. This will not necessarily happen quickly, but it will happen. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Info in gray box on top of draft

The gray box that shows up when I open the draft I'm working on contains some advisory bullet points, but I can't tell if they're specifically about perceived issues with my draft or if they're general notes for every draft. When I click on "edit," the box expands with more notes of advice, but only one notice keeps popping up, about finding sources. I don't yet have library access, but if anything, I've already over-sourced some of this, and I'm not done referencing.

So I'm curious about how to address the following issues if they are showing up specifically for me, because I don't think I've violated any of these rules.

• Do not copy-paste material from sources, or your submission will be rejected for copyright violations.
• Write from a neutral point of view and base your article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your own business. If you do so, you must declare it.

I might have a potential issue with copy-paste, but the situation is that I copied a page into a Word document to follow the layout and style almost three years ago when I knew far less and couldn't even figure out where to find a template. I wiped all the original information and wrote a completely different entry, and when I finally decided to try turning it into an actual draft, I lifted my copy and pasted it into the draft page (using visual editor). I also pasted in a couple of large tables that were built from the ones I copied, but have none of the original info. I'm afraid that might read as a copy-paste of material from sources, but that wasn't my intention at all. There is no duplicated info; I just used the structure. If that's an issue, how do I fix it without having to rebuild my entire page — because I'd rather leap off a bridge at this point. I haven't even added the photo and infobox. I figured I'll cross (or leap off) that bridge after I get all the other ducks in a row, including cleaning up my footnotes, etc. I'm hammering away at this thing, still trimming and refining to meet what seems like an ever-moving goalpost of rules and guidelines. I know I'm getting there, but I've been staring at those bullet points and thinking, "I get the message, and I'm not guilty!" I've got a journalism degree and decades of experience as a writer and editor. The last thing I would ever dream of doing is plagiarizing, and I'm very careful about attribution. I also know the difference between a neutral point of view and a slanted one (and I can spot promotional, self-serving or editorialized copy a mile away). So am I just being paranoid or what?

TexasEditor1 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a default message. If you look at your draft (I took the liberty) notice that gookygook on the first line. When you see those double curly brackets and you don't know what that's about you can replace the curly brackets and type this in the Wikipedia search bar Template:AFC submission Don't include the parameters, just the first part. This will take you to Template:AFC submission where you can read how it works. Notice the parameter "t". That calls a default bit of text that you see in the grey box from Template:AfC_submission/draft. Good luck with your article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Article was rejected, not an advertising purpose

Below mentioned article was rejected by wikipedia team and saying "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

however this article is just for non profit organization and they are working for nationwide Weather, climate & environmental issues.

please resolve this issue and give me some suggestions

Draft:PakWeather Network Owaishdr1 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Owaishdr1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As it seems that this is your organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.

It seems to be that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. The definition of a notable organization is written at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article about an organization 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 organization. We aren't interested in what the organization says about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose on their own- and not based on materials from the organization- to say about it. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Owaishdr1 This draft is not written in the correct format for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - articles should be written in a formal and scholarly tone, so structuring an article as "questions and answers" is inappropriate. Text like More than 15 young weather and nature lovers who work secretly, actively, and devotedly to promote Weather & Climate change awareness make up PakWeather's team reads like something listed from a press release or an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. Furthermore you have not provided any sources showing that this organisation is notable enough to qualify for an article (WP:NORG) or which can be used to verify the text (WP:V). Please read WP:Your first article for guidance on how to write a page, and if you have any conflicts of interest please disclose them as required. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A user reverted my edits based on rv sock

Help [[18]] a user is deceiving editors by removing content based on rv sock. My edit however differs from a recently blocked sock see Talk:Warjih people, yet a user (Magherbin) is using that pretext to push his version. YonasJH (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Image alignment

Been having a bit of trouble with image alignment. Let's say I've got a whole chunk of text above followed by a smaller section. I'd like to have my image push up into the larger chunk since it's kinda free space (whereas having it protrude downward would just mess up the organization). I had thought it was vertical alignment but that's just for in line images. I attached a few crude images of what I'm trying to accomplish.

[19]

In those images, the first one is what my wikitext looks like now. You can see that the image is associated with the second section/heading. But it protrudes down too much. The second image is what I'd like it to do. The space above is fine to push the image up into. But the problem is, it'd basically mean anchoring the image wayyyyy above section 2. So if the page ever does fill out with more text, the image could move pretty far and won't be "anchored" to section 2 anymore (naively optimistic but leave me alone). Plus, if anyone currently wanted to edit the picture and is editing in source mode, they'd wonder where the heck the image is because it's 5 or 6 lines above the start of section 2.

So is there any way to keep the image anchored to section 2 but push upward instead of downward? I know that pushing upward would be cutting into the previous "section" but with subheadings it's not as obvious or jarring when that happens, compared to when you break down through a full heading's lower edge. I know that using {{-}} is an option but I don't want there to be tons of dead space below section 2 when there's usable space above it. Can anyone give me some pointers? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Where you place the image inclusion text, is where it will 'anchor' the top of the image. If you want it higher, you simply have to place it higher up in the wikitext. There is no way to anchor the bottom of an image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheDJ Ohhhh....Well, I guess I should've asked earlier, would've saved me several hours of frustration *sigh. But thank you, I appreciate it! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

New user account set to bully and harass?

Hi

This new editor called @SolihullResident96: is attempting to try and intimidate and control me in what I can and can't edit. They are trying to make out they and another user (of unknown origin and doesn't exist). Is trying to say leave this page alone and your a troll account set about offending. I think this user should be given a warning of not to bully or harass other editors. Is this sort of thing allowed? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley No, their behaviour and the comments they have made about you are completely unacceptable. I would suggest warning them about personal attacks {{Uw-npa2}} and ownership of pages {{uw-own1}}. If they continue to make those kind of comments, consider reporting them to WP:ANI. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:192.76.8.85. Appreciate your reply and I'll look to add those two warnings linked. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley A little bit of advice for the future: your responses to their comments are less than helpful [20] [21], responding to incivility with more incivility just makes the situation worse. Be the bigger person, just remove the comments and warn them without stooping to their level. If you were to take this to ANI I expect that a lot of the regulars there would now see it as "two people making nasty comments at each other" rather than "newbie making ridiculous personal attacks at an established editor" 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I will just remove their comments and place a warning on their talk page. Thanks for the advice DragonofBatley (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability criteria on Wikipedia for a biography

Hi I need help on an article I'm trying to publish. The article is as follows: Draft:Elisa_Gold. A user advised me to ask here. The article is not approved, I think mainly for the sources, but are really many and in my opinion valid. The same article is already present on wikipedia es: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Gold . I wonder why it is not considered valid here on wikipedia en. Give me your opinions / advice. Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Diegoferralis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on one version isn't necessarily acceptable on another. The English language version tends to be a little more strict with regards to notability and other things. You must show that she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, by summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources you offer seem to just document the existence of her work, and are not significant coverage of her personally. What are the three best sources with significant coverage that you have?

If you are associated with Ms. Gold, please read conflict of interest. If you work for or are a paid representative of her, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Diegoferralis, this is strange stuff (as Theroadislong has already pointed out). We read that she's a "singer, television personality, dancer, model and businesswoman". Which business? "After making herself known, Elisa Gold found herself participating in a long list of programs that have been broadcast in different parts of the world." In what capacity did she participate? "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" I clicked on one link (the Vietnamese one) and got the impression that an art director had positioned her as a model. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a google translation of es-wiki article, done without attribution and without proofreading the resulting text. Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interventions. @Hoary if you check all the sources mentioned carefully you will notice that: he has participated in several famous TV shows. For example, in the Mujeres y Hombres program she was the protagonist. There are many sources for his holdings. As for singing, he made several songs collaborating with various artists. As for the fashion world, those listed are all the covers she posed for as a model. As an entrepreneur, there is probably very little. My difficulty is precisely where it would be appropriate to place it, carrying out at least 3 activities that according to have the same importance. @Slywriter I agree that everything should probably be written better. Diegoferralis (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Help:Translation. It's not as simple as probably should be written better. First, attribution is required when translating content from another language Wikipedia. Second, pure machine translation is considered next to useless for en-wiki as browsers can already do that and it adds little to the encyclopedia. If you wish to use the machine translation as the foundation for writing a draft, you need to take the time to cleanup the text so that it makes sense in English. Note: none of this is an assessment of the notability of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Diegoferralis (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, Diegoferralis, "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" means no more than "De Panicis modeled for various magazine covers". -- Hoary (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Moving the GWI Wikipedia Page

Hi all,

I'm an intern at GWI (I believe I properly disclosed this on my user page), a target audience company, and I would like to update some of the company's information on its wiki page because much is outdated. Recently, I updated the logo and some key outdated facts about the company on its wikipedia page (e.g., removing "key people" that haven't worked at the company for years). I am still trying to change the title of the article about GWI, though, because the wiki article is still entitled "GlobalWebIndex". This name is old as of 2018, and the company now refers to itself as GWI, wishing to distance itself from the old name for which GWI is an acronym. "GlobalWebIndex" is a misleading/inaccurate title for the article--all of its users/clients as well as the public know the company as GWI, and if you look at its website, you will not be able to find "GlobalWebIndex". If it were not for the current wikipedia page as it stands, there would be no concern for brand inconsistency. This is all to explain why I decided to make an effort to update the page.

Does anyone have any advice for moving this page or resolving this issue? Unfortunately, "GWI" already exists as a redirection page. However, "GlobalWebIndex," like I said, is 4 years out-of-date, and is confusing for anyone wishing to learn about the company. Is there any way to move "GWI" to "GWI (redirection page)" and move "GlobalWebIndex" to "GWI", perhaps?

Thanks for your time--any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Alexgwi (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexgwi Hello Alexgwi, welcome to the teahouse!

Since you have a conflict of interest I would advise against moving the page yourself, instead please use the Requested moves process. If you believe that moving the page is uncontroversial then you can use the Technical requests subpage to ask that someone move the page on your behalf. If you think the move would be controversial then please follow the instructions on the Controversial moves subpage to open a discussion about the article title. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Just went over to the Technical requests subpage and submitted a request. Thanks so much! Alexgwi (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlexgwiTo answer the other aspect of your question, since GWI already exists as a disambiguation page the company page cannot also exist at that title. If you want the article to start "GWI" you have two options - either demonstrate that the company is the clear Primary topic, in which case the existing page will be moved to GWI (disambiguation), (i.e. show that when someone searches "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for information on GlobalWebIndex and not the other things listed on that page), or you can propose to move the article to a disambiguated title, like "GWI (company)". Moving the existing disambiguation page is almost certainly going to be a controversial move that requires a discussion. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, how does one typically demonstrate that when people search "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the company? Is there like search data that one would have to present, for instance data that would show that when people go to the disambiguation page, 98% of the time they click on GWI (the company)? Alexgwi (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexgwi There are no hard and fast rules for what you are looking for really, each case gets argued on the basis of available evidence. Things like google ngrams, the relative page views of the articles (available at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/), and the clickstream data from the disambiguation page (available at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/) are all reasonable things to consider, but people may also point to things like long term significance, e.g. the primary topic of Jiren is the ancient Ethiopian capital city rather than the dragon ball character, despite the latter getting many more pageviews. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.85 this is fascinating and super helpful. Thanks so much again for your time! Alexgwi (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging to a list article

Hi. I think that this article is outdated and no longer meets the relevant notability criteria. But the subject is included in a list article, which is fine, so I was going to propose to merge the two. Is this appropriate, and is there anything I need to know about a merger proposal that has a list article as the destination page?

Also, in the merge template itself, I was going to link to a specific section of the destination page. Is that correct? — Matuko (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Matuko Generally policy is that Notability is not temporary - If a person has been the subject of significant coverage then they are considered to be notable forever - there is no need for there to be ongoing or up to date coverage. At a quick look the article appears to be well sourced and to contain enough coverage to probably pass a notability criteria. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. My question was really a technical one about the protocol, or the general mechanics of, merging into a list article with multiple sections. I'm not really asking about the notability issue here, though I'm not sure the article passes the notability criteria for criminals, specifically. I was planning to bring the issues to the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography talk page first, before proposing a merge or any other action. I just thought I'd use a specific example. Matuko (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Review

please review my draft

I have posted Today Baruah ranuj (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj: Please be patient. Someone will review it in time, but we have a long queue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You also skipped AfC for two biography articles you created on 5 July, neither of which in my opinion reach Wikipedia notability. Lurin Jyoti Gogoi was a student leader who lost an Assam election. Gyanendra Pratap Singh appears to be a mid-level police officer in Assam. WP:NPP may revert both to draft or else delete. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How to verify that reFill is being used from your account

Hello, Teahouse hosts. I'm about to use reFill, but I need to verify: how can you find out if you are using reFill under your account, and not as an IP editor? Is it that you simply have to go to toolforge:refill signed into Wikipedia, or is it something else? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @3PPYB6! When you use reFill, it ends up sending you back to Wikipedia, where you actually save the edit. So, you'll see the usual "You are not logged in." warning. Bsoyka (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Tv Episode Articles

Would an article like When Betty Met YETI meet GNG? The sources don't support anything other than "this episode aired and these people liked it" and I'm not sure how reliable those sources are anyway. There are so many of these types of articles on WP and I'm never sure whether to AfD them, redirect them, or whatever else. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that it meets GNG. But the question isn't that of whether the article meets GNG; it's of whether, if anyone were to bother to attempt to improve it, the article could meet GNG. To answer that question, one would have to look in Google or similar. I for one find that a depressing prospect: so many other uses for my limited time seem far more worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, Username, that earlier response of mine doesn't seem at all helpful. I suppose I'd put some effort into finding good sources, and, if I succeeded, would forget about the article and those that seemed similar, but, if I failed, would bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Let people there discuss notability. Actually I'd be inclined just to turn the thing into a redirect, but I'm sure that doing so would trigger much time-wasting indignation (some of it possibly even justified). -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I spent a whole week cutting down plots for American Horror Story, but most of those articles had at least an attempt at encyclopedic coverage. This is a glorified episode recap w/ a token gesture toward real world perspective. I think I'll try redirecting a few and see what develops. I tried something similar for Heroes and it got people to take a serious look at some of the more egregious articles. Thanks! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding some translation

I did some translation of a page in my sandbox and was hoping to get some feedback before I add it to the actual page.

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chagropango/sandbox

 Chagropango (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the main problem is that we already have a page El Corte Inglés and although your sandbox is now a much larger article, there is no indication where you obtained the material (i.e. following WP:TRANSLATE you need to acknowledge editors/other-language-Wikipedias elsewhere whose work you translated). I suggest you add parts of the material from your sandbox in increments to the existing article, giving credit in edit summaries if the parts you are adding are translations. That way, other editors interested in the English version of the article will notice what you are doing and can comment on individual edits if needs be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the suggestion. Do you mean I should look up who added the text in the Spanish original and then credit them when I add something to the English page? Chagropango (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chagropango That level of detail isn't necessary, and in many cases the text will be written by multiple people anyway. all you need to do is use an edit summary like

Content in this edit is translated from [[:es:El Corte Inglés|the corresponding article]] on the Spanish Wikipedia, please see that article's history for attribution

which provides the required attribution and a link to the original. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, good to know, thanks Chagropango (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki admin

Are Wikipedia admins paid ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Admins are unpaid volunteers like everyone else. Paid staff do not edit or make editorial decisions in that capacity, and can only take administrative actions under specific circumstances. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre Talk page phenomenon

I just added a new section to the Talk page of the Film noir article (the newest one, "Vulgar auteurism", at the bottom of the page). A reference section from some other article magically appears in my post, but there is nothing but my text when I enter "Editing Talk". Can someone help me remove that unwanted text? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. If a page cites sources, and has no {{reflist}}, they all get listed at the end of the page. The solution is to add {{reflist|talk page}} where the list of references would be useful. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Revising references.

I have edited the page Collaborative fiction and condensed the new entry that is entitled The Painted Sky and the Shining Light into an entry under Australia where it should be. I have not as yet deleted that entry that stands alone because I can't duplicate the references 24 and 25. Can you let know how I can edit these. I don't want to generate new references but keep these two numbers. Thank you in anticipation Debbie Robson Lakelady2282 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Lakelady2282, I've moved the two references for you. It's now up to you to delete the now unreferenced Painted Sky section. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you so much. Will do now. Lakelady2282 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Article i'm working

Hello, i would like your opinion on an article i'm working on about network radios and i would also appreciate help with finding WP:RS.

OGWFP (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi OGWFP At present, your draft has no sources at all, so you have some way to go! There is a template you may find useful, which I've added here and you could copy to your sandbox as you work further on the draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OGWFP, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your draft shows that you haven't yet understood what Wikipedia is. It looks as if you've starting writing what you know about something: Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet) knows about anything. What Wikipedia is interested in is what has been published about a subject in reliable sources: that's all. The difficult task of writing an article starts with finding reliable sources about a subject, and then writing a neutral summary of what those sources say. In particular, any kind of argumentation, conclusions, or advice (as in your "advantages and disadvantages" section) is absolutely not acceptable: if you find one or more sources that discuss the advantages and disadvantages, you can summarise their arguments and conclusions, (even quote short passages if it seems appropriate, attributed of course), but putting your own conclusions and recommendations is original research, and not permitted. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability advice for rejected article at Draft:Luke Toki

Hi, I'd like to ask for advice for Draft:Luke Toki, which I'm very close to WP:ABANDONing. I keep on getting the same editor at WP:AFC declining my draft, although they continue to contradict themselves when they state that "additional references meeting these criteria should be added" but also that "adding more references is often not useful" in helping to establish notability. What more can I do? Does this WP:BIO draft have any hope or is it better to just abandon it? Happily888 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Those two things don't contradict each other exactly. The first one specifies references meeting those criteria. It looks like you've been adding more references that are the same type/quality as the ones that were already present in the article, so that doesn't help show that the subject is notable. As for whether there's anything you can do, I'll leave that to others more familiar with this genre of biography. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Happily888, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find it helpful to read the essay WP:Citation overkill. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible to add to the title of a previously published article?

I noticed that the existing title of an article isn't extensive enough to cover everything involved (which is just one more item). Is there any way to add to the title while not otherwise change the title itself? Augnablik (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Augnablik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia page titles are changed by moving the page. Your account is autoconfirmed, so you should have that action available to you - but if the change you want to make might be at all controversial, I recommend discussing it on the article's talk page first, and get consensus. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an "article's talk page"? Augnablik (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Every article has a talk page, though in some cases it hasn't yet been created. In the skin I use, there's a tab labelled "Talk" at the top left. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent Changes

How can I see the next page of Recent Changes? (past 500) – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle There is no next page, recent changes is limited to 500 results. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

i think that it might be because the complexity of dealing with that dataset makes such feature unsuitable to become a part of mediawiki. perhaps you would like to check out WP:OLDSCHOOL while you wait for someone more experienced to give you a better answer. 77.115.167.207 (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle To prevent the page using too much server time - getting and filtering a list of contributions in real time is computationally expensive. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Knowing how SQL works, selecting the next 500 could be messy, but selecting the top 500 older than a given time would be efficient (so long as the revision time is indexed, which it should be). It would be nice to review older recent changes and see what slipped through. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Image upload from public domain

I wanna upload an image from a public domain Dipr assam.This is the image link. To upload it in commons , which option to select after selecting this is not my own work. I didn't see any option of license of India . Then what to choose? Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Before we proceed, Baruah ranuj, please point to evidence that this is, as you say, in the public domain. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Baruah ranuj, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why do you think that that image is public domain? I cannot see any statement to that effect, and on https://dipr.assam.gov.in/policies/copyright-policy-0 it says Material featured on this Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us, which is not the same as public domain. ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Why my article deleted

My recent draft:sujit das is deleted . What's the reason and how to improve it to be granted by admins ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Baruah ranuj! Welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft was not deleted, just declined. The reasons are listed on the draft itself and your talk page. Just read through those messages to learn what needs to be done to improve the draft. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj, you say: London World Records University awarded him an honorary doctorate for his outstanding achievements on 27 February 2013 at a ceremony held at the Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra, New Delhi. I don't know about 2013, but this enterprise currently calls itself "World Records University". I'd suggest retaining the quotation marks: we wouldn't want readers to mistake it for an actual university. And of course the assertion must be reliably referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary I don’t think we should use that at all as it’s not a real university. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I wouldn't use it either. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@HoaryI have cited sources from Guinness Book of World records as you know and many sources. I don't the criteria but all data are correctly mentioned. A few mistakes may be there that you have showed me. So there is nothing to specify as a reason for pending the article.Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj, you have been told "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Yet even now, the longest paragraph has no references whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary I have removed that one.@Baruah ranuj:

Reverted edits

Hi, i need help. An editor named "Alototus" keep reverting my edits on article named " Deoghar Airport" where he keeps adding layover/ connecting flights to airlines and destinations page. I think only direct flight that operates from airport should only be there. It is obvious that airport will interconnected via each other by some connecting flights that doesn't mean that editor should keep adding those lenghty list. Any help to fixed this will be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashthomsom (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Already asked and answered on the Help Desk. Please do not cross post. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Need help with my article

The page was on draft I don't know why somebody moved it I anyway I had already received this G11 tag and in fact I had it rewritten in an unbiased way and it seemed to be going in the right direction so I'm asking if you can put the page in draft as it was before. A lot of administrators are telling me about the notability to me it seems (comparing me to other podcasts and other pages) that mine is fine that way... I would really like to have a clear answer or practical explanation of why my article is not going well because I try to test and it doesn't work so please if you can can give me an answer?

The page is on draft of the page named on my talk page... I don't want to write the name because it will get in the google search list Jdtw2022 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links Italian wine podcast and Draft:Italianwinepodcast. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting citation numbers to update

As I'm working on edits for a long article and want to be sure I have a copy of my work "just in case," I have a Microsoft word file into which I copy my edits as I go, section by section. Although the text is copied accurately, the citations in the copied text usually (though not always!) start numbering back at 1. There seems to be a way within Word to update citation numbers, but it's not working for me — unless I'm doing it wrong.

o Is there a way to avoid citation numbers changing if we copy our edits into an outside application like Word?

o Even more basically, is there a way to save different versions of our edits in Wikipedia itself, in a work area just for an individual editor? Augnablik (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Augnablik and welcome to the teahouse!

• the citations may be resetting back to ^[1] since you're editing a section. in section previews only the citations present are included in the numbering instead of all of them. do they still show up as ^[1] even after publishing changes?
• you can save your edits in your Sandbox (yours is located at User:Augnablik/sandbox) and work on it there! although if you save your edits there, everyone will be able to see it, although that probably won't be a problem as everyone will be able to see your edits anyway once you publish it at your main destination, and people rarely view sandboxes anyway (unless they're checking on your work).

happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Melecie. I didn't know it was possible to save edits in our sandboxes!

As for the question you asked me, the numbers wouldn't change in my published version unless I copied from Word back into Wikipedia ... which I'd be a little leery to do unless someone overwrote everything I'd published and I wanted to re-post my version. (But then, of course, I'd want to avoid a war and work out a peace treaty.) Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ghosted Wiktionary

Hello, I'm having trouble for speedy deletion of many articles on a wiki which hasn't had any administrator not even an active one. I'd like to request for adminship as well but don't know where to start. I'm active on there wiki (km Wiktionary), trying to prevent vandalism as possible. I wish to start being interface admin but afraid not meeting criterias. How should I either request for admin of other project wiki for assistance or becoming an admin myself with provided advices? Thank you. Pichnat Thong (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pichnat Thong, welcome to the Teahouse. See meta:Steward requests/Permissions. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see Meta:Requests_and_proposals#On_other_wikis PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Article not indexed on Google.

Hi. AnderNigro (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

AnderNigro Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It takes time for search engines to index pages, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

To expand on 331dot's answer, new articles are indexed when 90 days have passed or a new pages patroller has reviewed them, whichever comes first. There's more info on that at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: AnderNigro —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Economic Management Sciences

Who is the Local president in china And who is he the councillor 41.116.97.219 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new editors who have questions about editing Wikipedia. As said above, we have a reference desk where there are a few categories of which you can ask your question, or you could search this in a browser.

Asparagusus (interaction) 15:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ratan Darasha Tata

I wanted to add Ratan Darasha Tata to the industrialist Zaoroastrians of India. He was born on 9th February 1937 in Bombay and died on 3rd July 2022 in Vienna. Traudl1 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Lists of people on Wikipedia are only for people who have a Wikipedia article about them. Ratan Darasha Tata does not have a Wikipedia article so please don't add his name to any list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Recover deleted draft

Hello, how can I retrieve my draft that was deleted for copyright claims? I would like to modify two paragraphs that I think got hit.

Draft:Hathor Network - here's the link to the deleted draft Pxx05 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Pxx05, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you wish to recover a copy of a deleted draft, contact the deleting administrator, in this case, MER-C. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pxx05 The advice given is incorrect. Pages that are deleted due to containing copyright violations cannot/will not be restored. The only thing you can really do here is write another draft, making sure you avoid introducing copyright violations. Text must be written entirely in your own words - do not copy from or closely paraphrase your sources. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to recovering a copy of a deleted page via email from a admin, not undeletion/restoring a deleted page. Sorry if that was not made clear! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Still no. The draft was inappropriately promotional as well. You need to start again and cite only reliable sources (namely mainstream financial media). MER-C 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Giant snails

How do I request that someone update a page? (In this case, to update the history of the snail being found again in Florida - the page makes no reference of it, only says Florida declared them gone in 2021) 173.171.158.226 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Do you have a reliable published source stating that the giant snail is in Florida? If so, and if you don’t want to add the information and reference cite yourself, you can go to the Talk page of the relevant Wikipedia article, give the reference cite (such as - name of article, name of publication, issue date and page number) and state that the article says giant snails have been found at this location, could someone add it to the article. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lissachatina fulica appears to be the species that was eradicated in Florida, several years ago. An internet search on Lissachatina fulica and Forida yields newspaper websites posting that snails have again been seen in Florida. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Online/Offline template status

Hello, I am looking for a template which shows If I'm online or offline that I can add onto my userpage. Thanks. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dinoz1: Welcome to the Teahouse! This is theoretically possible, but you would have to update it yourself every time you want to show up as online or offline. I did so myself for some time, but quickly lost the motivation to update that page multiple times a day, so I got rid of it. If you really want to give it a shot, just make a page like User:Dinoz1/Status and transclude it as needed. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your very polite and helpful response! Have a wonderful day! Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dinoz1: We do have templates {{User status}} and {{User Status}} but our software has no automatic feature to show the status so users have to indicate it with edits. That's impractical and few users do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

See also User:StatusBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Block Policy

Can you get IP blocked? RandomDude6 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @RandomDude6. A lot of IPs are blocked for vandalism or unconstructive editing. Special:Blocklist lists some blocked users, including IPs. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice on notoriety and self-publishing

Hello, I am new to the Wikipedia community and looking for feedback if I would qualify (based on notoriety) for a personal Wikipedia page. I have growing visibility in my scientific field and I’m a public face in Hawaii and in national media for public health and political advocacy. I have recently been honored with some prestigious recognitions (things like 40 Under 40 lists, State Legislative honors, and a large public award coming soon). My concern is that I share the same name of another individual who is also growing in notoriety but for opposite political views and there have been some mistaken associations. Would my profile be appropriate for a Wiki page?

“Jacob (Jake) Schafer is an American epidemiologist, humanitarian aid worker, science communicator, and public health activist. He is known for his work in responding to disease outbreaks and other health emergencies, notably pandemics. He is considered an emerging leader in the field of global health security and public health development.” Of course, I have several public secondary sources and magazine profiles on me to source.

Please let me know your thoughts. DisasterEpi (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. Please be aware that nobody has a "personal" article. The subject of the article doesn't have much control over the article's content. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@DisasterEpi: Welcome to the Teahouse. I invite you to read the essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and understand that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. It's best to let an uninvolved editor (one that doesn't have a conflict of interest with you, paid or otherwise) find those sources and write about you from scratch.

Also, subjects suitable for Wikipedia are determined by the encyclopedia's definition of notability, not notoriety. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Need Help With Page Being Reported Improperly

Hi I'm a fan of the band Dead Posey - Recently after making minor edits, their wiki page was flagged with this message at the top of the page:

[[This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2022) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2022)]]

How do I go about getting this off their page properly?? I've "cited" all sources on their wiki page. There is no biased view or revising history to my knowledge. I've assumed most bands "fans" are the ones that create and work on their wiki pages, so I'm confused by the sudden "flagging" of this wiki page when nothing out of wiki guidlines/rules is going on. From what I've also seen on wiki, most contributors are working on pages that they're fans of in regards to people, places, organizations etc. I feel I've been wrongly accused of not working within wiki guidlines/rules especially since wiki is based on "good faith." Theres no proof of doing anything wrong and I'd appreciate some help/backup from the wiki pros. All I'm trying to do in this case is update a bands page that I'm a fan of and to state again I've worked very hard to cite everything on this page properly. Any help with getting the wiki patrol off my back would be greatly appreciated. - User: PoeWritesThings ;) Poewritesthings (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You could have notified Praxidicae about this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, separately tagged by P and User:Rosguill. Ask both. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Poewritesthings: I haven't looked at all the sources, but I see at least one press release. Sources that are not independent weaken the subject's claim to notability. I also marked a dead link. Everything needs to be sourced. The influences section for example is now unsourced. As far as the tone, maybe look at other music articles and see how they are written. Lastly, you're better off calling articles articles instead of pages. That can irk people here, since this isn't Facebook or Myspace. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and knowledge much appreciated. So if I cite a source that orginally was a press release from what appears to be from the bands press team thats considered a non source to cite correct? Has to be a 3rd party article written about them, yes?

As far as getting the "The article has multiple issues etc" taken off the top of Dead Posey wiki how do I get that to happen? I know now I'm not supposed to remove it myself. Just trying to get the page it a good spot so any bit helps. Thank you again for your time. Poewritesthings (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Poewritesthings: You have to address each of the two issues flagged. The tone can be improved with a rewrite. The notability can be improved by showing that independent media organizations wrote about the band, and the coverage can't be routine. Since the press release was released by the band itself, it doesn't help show notability. And of course a self-published source isn't always reliable. You can sometimes get away with using one to say something like "The band announced in a press release ..." but that doesn't make the band notable. WP:NBAND might help. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense about getting sources that aren't "press releases" so I've started to update some of the cites to stronger sources I'm finding online.

As far as a rewrite goes to make the tone of the article stronger - the bands I've seen on wiki have similar language on their articles, if you have any additional tips on how to word things better with whats on the article now I'd appreciate it. I'd love to punch it up so this article is in good standing and the "Article Issues" box at the top removed.

In regards to a "fan of a band" working on wiki articles, if everything is true and cited properly that shouldn't be an issue correct? You have been very helpful, thank you. Poewritesthings (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Poewritesthings, even with 100% perfect sourcing, content may be unsuitable for inclusion, so the answer to the last question in your message is "no". Relevant policy sections are "WP:UNDUE" and "WP:ONUS": It is possible to create a biased, non-neutral article by including just verifiable information, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for clarifying. I'm confused because I've seen a-lot of other bands articles specifically that look a-lot like the Dead Posey article and I'm not seeing a problem with this one over others. I've always thought wiki is a place that gathers info from online sources about a person, place or thing. It seems like theres a bit of gatekeeping on wiki that I wasn't aware of. I thought I've been neutral on this article but it seems like some contributors on wiki have it out for this article for in my opinion no good reason. If you have any contributors names you know of that like to contribute to band articles specifically could you please let me know their names for me to reach-out to them. This band specifically has enough reputable sources and career and deserves a wiki article among other bands at their level seem to have, hence why I started it. Again, thank you for your time and your thought out responses I greatly appreciate it. Poewritesthings (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This response I just wrote above is meant for "TimTempleton" Poewritesthings (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

At Dead Posey and Tony Fagenson you messed up the refs by moving ref content that was under References into the body of the article, but not using the ref names that had been previously used in the body of the article. Hence all the red at the bottom. David notMD (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Colors

Hi. Could someone please add the colors here to the template I am making at User:BeanieFan11/2022 Birmingham Stallions. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi BeanieFan11. I have done it with titlestyle = {{Gridiron primary style|year=2022|Birmingham Stallions}}.[22] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hidden errors

In John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, footnote 64 omits the "d" in "published, and footnote 56 omits the space in the initials "E.P." I can't find these errors when I go to "edit source." Can someone please help? Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest making an Edit request on the article talk page to bring attention to this issue. I unfortunately primarily use the visual editor, so I am not sure how to fix the citation. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Maurice Magnus, welcome to the Teahouse! I fixed the first problem in this edit (I had to do a search for where the ref was defined). I'm not so sure that the second problem is actually a problem - note that John E.P. Daingerfield deliberately does not have the space. Why that is, I don't know; it may have been a convention of the time. Studying the sources, and/or a discussion on the talk page, might clear things up. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Creating a redirection page

Has the policy on creating new pages changed (specifically redirection pages, but probably the same applies to others)? In the past, if I wanted to create a new page the system would allow it without formality, most recently (20th June) a redirection from Harden-Young ester to Fructose 2,6-bisphosphate went without problems. Now I need to redirect from enterobactin synthase to 2,3-dihydroxybenzoate—serine ligase. As the IUBMB recommended name is enterobactin synthase that's what people can be expected to search for, but they won't find it unless they try 2,3-dihydroxybenzoate—serine ligase instead. However, when I tried to create a page it said "The page "Enterobactin synthase" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered". OK, but is it really necessary to go through a review? How long will it take? Has the policy changed in the past three weeks? Athel cb (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Athel cb! Interestingly, someone else asked a very similar question a few days ago, here. Perhaps those replies will help (I wonder if something has indeed changed recently... ). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The wording changed 22 June [23] but you still create the page by clicking the red link with the page name. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for these responses, which were very helpful. The discussion to which you directed me described exactly the same problem as I was having. Clicking on the red link had the desired effect, and there is now a page Enterobactin synthase. Athel cb (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

deleting wikipedia user account

please guide me to delete my duplicate user account Plannerakc (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Plannerakc Hello and welcome. It is not possible to delete an account, for technical and legal reasons. Simply stop using and abandon your duplicate account. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

About Decline of Page

I Have created a new page of an Upcoming Movie named Naar Ka Sur and have provided the required references as well but still it got Declined. Why? Whizofficial (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As explained following the "decline" notice:

sources need to be placed after the content they support

That may be moot, however. Have you considered whether this film would meet the notability guidelines for enwiki? Fabrickator (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, Whizofficial, the text you have written is promotional. "Naar Ka Sur has already received so much of love and appreciation from the audience that they are showing their excitement about the trailer and the song." If a published source, wholly unconnected with the film's production and promotion, has said this, then it could appear in an article, appropriately quoted and cited. Otherwise, such language does not belong in any Wikipedia article.

Also, given your user name, and the fact that your only edits in Wikipedia appear to be to promote this film, I need to ask, what is your connection with the film? If you are in any way connected with it, you need to be aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest. If you are in any way paid or employed in connection with this film or its producers or publicists, then it is mandatory to declare yourself as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi

Yesterday I tried to get the article Cryptography newsgroups speedy deleted under the lack of notability web criteria. This was removed because the article was too old. Now I still think this article should be deleted, but I don't really know how to proceed; is it better to be on the safe side and do AfD? Or is it so uncontroversial that PROD would be fine?

I feel like its hard to know if the deletion of an article is uncontroversial without initiating deletion. Stowgull (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not appropriate just because the article desn't cite any sources. As the admin said, please use WP:PROD or WP:AFD for an article that is 18 years old (when Wikipedia rules were a lot less strict). It is usually preferable to try to find sources than simply delete such an article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing

hello, I would like to know if there is another place for editors to hold a debate or to reach a consensus other than the articles talk page. My reason for asking is... Someone edited Millie bobby brown page and added that she is a model, after a while another editor removed it. So I opened a talk on her page for editors to debate and come to a consensus if she is a model. The level of ignorance I saw was overwhelming because non of the editors understand wikipedia policy of reliable sources because I showed several links that verified that millie bobby brown is a model and that she is signed to a well known modeling agency img models, she has modeled for brands like Louis Vuitton,vogue and other brands she is listed on model.com website as among models. With all this I mentioned and showed sources verifying it editors are still in doubt that she is a model whereas she is listed as a producer when it is only one movie she has produced in her acting career. So I would like to know if there is any place in Wikipedia I can report or bring up a debate aside from a pages talk page because editors are no longer responding and participating. Or is there any help desk or admin/admins that I can refer the matter to so that they can look into it. cheers.Uricdivine (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Urlcdinive, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Dispute resolution explains things you can do when a talk page discussion cannot reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Uricdivine, you've discussed the issue extensively at Talk:Millie_Bobby_Brown#Modeling_career, and failed to convince any of the three other editors who disagree with you. So now you're hoping to find another discussion forum, where there'll be people who agree with you. I wouldn't hold out much hope. Maproom (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine can you please break it down and tell me where I can go? Because a lot of information is there and I tried reading but I got lost after 5 paragraphs. @Maproom your correct I failed to convince them because neither of them wanted to be convinced. And yes am looking for a forum. Why am so keen-on this topic is because I can't understand why information that is sourced and verifiable isnt changing there mind for me I think is a personal vandeata or issues the have with her maybe the don't think an 18yrs old should have so many titles.... Am so keen on this topic because my links covers both Wikipedia reliable source policy and notability policy but the seem to show a blind eye also like I said she has produced only 1 movie which is enola Holmes but she is listed as a producer whereas her modeling career is ignored without reason. So please I would like to know if there is anywhere an admin or high and seasoned editor can look at my links and claims if it meets Wikipedia standard for inclusion. Uricdivine (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unless there is a reliable source to prove that she is or was ever a model, then your dispute could keep going on in a loop forever. As said above, WP:Dispute resolution has a guide to dispute resolution, but because you “got lost after 5 paragraphs”, I don’t think that would be of much help to you. The “dispute” you are having is mostly just you and uninvolved editors (plus the one person at the bottom saying that they believe you to be right). If you’re not going to use the resources other editors have provided for you, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Asparagusus (interaction) 16:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have used the dispute resolution. And yes I do have reliable sources supporting my claim.cheersUricdivine (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

uploading a video

HI I need assistance on how to upload a video 아미나 추바히로 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

아미나 추바히로, Have you seen this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 아미나 추바히로! To upload your own or a freely licensed video, go to Wikimedia Commons and go to the upload form at Special:Upload, or read the instructions at c:Project:Video#Uploading a video. Please note that it should comply with Commons' project scope. If you want to upload a non-free video, please read Wikipedia's non-free content criteria first, then upload directly on Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard. As Hoary said above, though, Commons only accepts WebM (.webm), Ogg Theora (.ogv), or MPEG1/MPEG2 for video clips. Thanks! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Upload a picture that is my work but also published on other websites

Hi! How can I upload a picture that is my work but is already found on articles? How can I proove it is my work? Followyoursoul (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Followyoursoul. What do you mean by articles? Do you mean Wikipedia articles? If it's already being used in Wikipedia articles, then there's no reason to upload it again. How did other people obtain your work? Did you grant them permission to use it? Did you post it somewhere online first and they got it from there? They had to have gotten it somehow and what you're going to likely need to do to establish it's your own work is to somehow prove that they got the work from you in someway. One way of doing this would be to establish that you did publish the picture somewhere before anyone else started using it. Another way might be provide some evidence in which these other people state they got the picture from you. You might also want to take a look at c:COM:Own work and WP:COPYVIO#Information for copyright owners for reference as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Citing Legislation and/or Laws

How can an editor quickly and conveniently cite legislation? I am asking because, I was editing the UK politics page, looking to update information on Northern Irish election dates, and the only source I could find describing Northern Irish election dates was the Northern Ireland Act 1998... 30 chapters in. My solution to this was to just cite the entire Act and leave the chapter and section numbers in my edit description, is the proper way to do this or is there a better way? ApatheticName (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@ApatheticName – I think there is a better way. If the legislation is a book, you can use {{cite book}}. There will be a |chapter= field, where you will simply type "30". You can also read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Thanks! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There exists Template:Cite legislation UK for that. Note that Chapter (=47) has a specific meaning, different to that used above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz, for that. 😅 — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And who knew, we also have an article about it: Citation of United Kingdom legislation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Testex

Hello!

I've been having an issue with the Testex article. First, full disclosure: I'm an employee of Testex and work on the article on their behalf (I have also disclosed the paid editing on my user page). I want to create a proper article - not some marketing text - and thus put a lot of work and effort into composing a well-sourced text based on reliable secondary literature. This is my text. I've already made the changes to the existing article, but an editor reverted it and told me that I should make suggestions on the talk page instead of making large-scale additions to the article itself. There seems to be no Wikipedia policy that supports that, so what shall I do? I have proposed my edit on the talk page but no one has reacted, and I frankly don't know what's wrong my text addition. I'd really appreciate any help, feedback, or criticism, because I wish to improve the text in case that it contains errors or doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies. Best regards, --Gotthard175 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Gotthard175 Please review the conflict of interest policy, specifically this portion which states "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" and "you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the request edit template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed" 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gotthard175. You probably would be better off following the advice given in Wikipedia:Edit request and making smaller easy to assess edit requests instead of trying to get the article essentially rewritten in one fell swoop. The users who tend to help out with edit requests are probably not going to want to read through a total rewrite trying to figure out what's different. It's also probably going to be seen as inappropriate and possibly not very respectful to ask a reviewer to toss out the current version in favor of the one you've written no matter how good your intentions are per WP:BABY since essentially you'd be asking for a de-facto deletion of all of the edits made by others over the years. It's fine to suggest specific improvements to the existing article, but it's also probably wise try to WP:PRESERVE as much of the existing article as possible. It might already be a "proper" article for Wikipedia's purposes and just needs polishing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism

can you be IP blocked for plagiarism? RandomDude6 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Any editor can be blocked for persistent copyright violations, if that's what you mean. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect in my sandbox.

I want to create a new article concerning a former president of Delaware State University. I created a couple of other articles last year -- my first time as an article creator. I did so by writing in the Sandbox. I clicked on the Sandbox to start the article I now want to create, but I found that the Sandbox is a redirect page for one of the previous articles I wrote last year. How do a establish a fresh sandbox to create the new article?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cholmes58/sandbox&redirect=no Cholmes58 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cholmes58. It's your sandbox, so you could just go in and blank it or place new material into it before "publishing changes". However, if your intention is to create a new draft article, I'd suggest using the WP:AFC process whereby you create the draft in the area normally used for new stuff that needs to be reviewed before acceptance into the main encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wants to create a page

Hello, Can anyone help me to create a page Satheshrm (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satheshrm, see WP:YFA for guidance. Keep in mind that the article has to be sourced with reliable sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. All the sources are reliable. and this is for a famous celebrity in the indian music industry. I need to create a page for him. Can you create the page? Satheshrm (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Satheshrm, you can use our article wizard to create an article. Please ensure that you have read the relevant policies such as Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Bears (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:V.V._Subrahmanyam

I have added a draft. Is this correct format? Can you help to complete this? Satheshrm (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satheshrm, there is no need to bold so many sentences, doing so for only the name in the first sentence is enough. The draft does not have enough reliable sources and inline citations, other than The Hindu. And references should not just be passing mentions. Also check whether the subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Further, maintain a neutral point of view and avoid WP:PUFFERY. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satheshrm - Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to be co-authors. That said, for Draft:V.V. Subrahmanyam, I removed the bolding and created sections. The rest is on you. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satheshrm: I would strongly suggest reading Easy referencing for beginners, as there are no inline citations (which are needed). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Reference

How to convert Wikipedia English references to e.g. Portuguese language? Regards, Wname1 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wname1, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear to me what you are asking. Are you asking about translating a Wikipedia article to add it to pt-wiki, and wanting to know how to convert the references? If so, you'll need to refer to pt:WP:CITE. If it uses a citation template, you'll need to replace that by the corresponding portuguese template: see pt:Categoria:!Predefinições para referências.

If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As an example: on the English espresso page there are 46 references ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso ) each of the references I must translate once each time, as in "Wikipédia:Livro de estilo/Cite as fontes", yes? Wname1 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. There may be tools that can help, but I don't know about them. Perhaps there is a bot on the pt-wiki which you can request to help you. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

GALE IDs in newspaper citations

In the article London's last tram week, there are citations to references from The Times newspaper, among others. I obtained these references from non-digital copies of the newspaper in my local public library. I later found that the newspapers in question are available in digital form in the GALE on-line database. So I tried to add the relevant GALE IDs to the citations, using the example in the Template:Gale documentation as a model.

Here is how one of the citations now appears:

• "Street Tramways". The Times. London. 26 May 1869. p. 10. Gale CS168995002.

I have two questions. (1) Is this a reasonable thing to do - given that not everyone will have access to GALE (it needs either a paid subscription or access via a library or institution; I accessed it via the Wikipedia Library)? (2) Does the format look right to you? I couldn't find any examples in other articles to compare it to.

Thanks in advance for any advice. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont, (1) yes, (2) yes. A Gale (or ProQuest or Project MUSE, etc.) link to a restricted source is useful to some readers; the absence of it isn't useful for anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thanks very much for your fast response, which is reassuring. And also for the mention of ProQuest and Project MUSE, which I shall keep in mind for future research. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a Disambiguation example?

On Tens (disambiguation), it lists a link in the "Other" section for the cartoon series The Emperor's New School just because its abbreviated form is TENS, but the title on its own does not have the word "ten" in the title nor the number 10 in numerical form, so is it really an example? Turboplate (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Turboplate. I don't understand your question. That DAB page is for "Tens" not "Ten" or "10", so why would "TENS" not appear there? ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess Turboplate means that TENS is not an official or well-known abbreviation for The Emperor's New School and it doesn't appear in the article. The Google search "TENS" "The Emperor's New School" finds so few and poor examples that it does seem questionable to me per WP:DABACRONYM. It was added by an IP in 2007.[24] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Turboplate (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with blockquote paragraph break

Can someone please help me make a normal paragraph break in the text bellow (the current spacing seems about 1.5 times wider than a normal paragraph break).

At the head of the procession is a youth of some sixteen or seventeen years bearing the standard with the symbols of the sun and other heavenly bodies. His figure is a beautiful presentment of budding manhood, and is perfect in its contour. The skin is dark, but glows with the vigour of young life. The features and the head betoken intelligence and earnestness. The whole pose has a distinction and a virility quite ennobling; he is indeed a puer viriliter, such as was the model of Polykleitos's "Diadumenos." He is nude save only for a loose embroidered drapery of reddish purple, which drooping over his shoulder envelops his loins. His dark hair is crowned with laurels and he wears light sandals.

Behind him marches the majestic figure of the Daphnephoros or Laurel-bearer, towering above his fellow-processionists, as a fit type of the priest of the God of the Sun. He is youthful, and his fine figure, displaying almost heroic limbs beneath his vesture, is surmounted by a splendid head, full of the mental force of manhood and of the fire of devotion. His hair is black, but his skin is lighter than that of his young herald in front. He wears a golden diadem of many points and a heavy crown of laurel. In one hand he carries the consecrated branch of laurel, and with the other he gathers up into rich folds the trailing length of his creamy-white, gold-embroidered vestment. His feet are sandalled also and are, as are all the feet in the procession, exact examples of perfect form.

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia replace the <br><br> with {{pb}}. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Cheers 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Publishing a Wiki Article

I have been working on a Wiki Article. It currently in my sandbox. I would like to get input and share with the community. What do I do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fireman_Creative/sandbox Fireman Creative (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello there Fireman! I suggest moving your sandbox content into a draft and reviewing the article to make sure it meets the manual of style. You should certainly read Help:Your first article before doing any of these things though. When you think it is ready, submit your draft through the Articles for creation process. It will allow other editors to assess its quality for publication. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Bits of it look suitable, Fireman Creative, but much of it is a text dump from elsewhere. Even if there's no copyright-related impediment to reproduction, the material doesn't suit an encyclopedia. So cut, cut, cut. And a tip: instead of multiple references to "Dawson, Charles (1889). Our Fireman. Pittsburgh, PA: Henry Fenno", have just one, with no page number. Call it repeatedly, each time supplementing it with the "Rp" template for the page number(s). -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do. The materials are very interesting and again because many of these texts are not digitized-nor has the information been read in over a hundred years- they make for great learning. One thing to note is the pre-digital roles encyclopedias played in publishing information. In the information age- finding sources that tell unique histories is quite unique. If you do a Google search on Pittsburgh old structures and Fire Department histories there is very little to find. I will edit edit edit but removing the interesting information will make this article ordinary and because of the wealth of accurate information that is not digitized- it will be a big loss to the world. Again, I may just need to start reworking this content as a magazine article- get it published and then reference the article in a less interesting Wiki article. Thak you for the links- I have been reading the manual of style. Fireman Creative (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fireman Creative, you might want to check out Wikisource - there's a link to the actual site in the infobox. It would be the perfect place to upload scans of copyright-free historical texts, making them electronically available to the world. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Hello!

I'm interning with a well-established company and planning to write a very neutral, unbiased wikipedia article about them so that there's more readily available information about them online. The article is not intended to be promotional, but simply the nuts and bolts of their origins as a company, their most notable accomplishments, etc. Is it okay for me to write this page at all? They're a very notable company in their field, which makes me feel that wikipedia would have something to gain from a well-written article about them too.

Other questions:

Would I be able to include information that lacks a source external to the company itself? Or, does that sort of information need to be published elsewhere before it's usable?

How might I go about declaring my conflict of interest? Bstro18 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bstro18, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for coming here and asking, rather than just plunging into doing this.

First, please notice that "so that there's more readily available information about them online" is promotion, as Wikipedia uses the term. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about things, it's for summarising what the world has already been told about things.

Having said that, you are allowed to try this: but you might find it harder and more frustrating than you expect.

First, as you say, you have a conflict of interest: in fact, you are regarded as a paid editor, (whether your internship is actually paid or not), and it is mandatory to make a declaration as specified in that link.

Then you should read your first article, and seek the reliable independent sources which are required to demonstrate that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - if you can't find them, then give up and don't waste any further effort.

If you find the sources, create a draft and start writing. You will need to forget everything you know about the company, and write based only on what those indepdendent sources say - even if those sources say things that you and your employers don't like. 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) 09:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and give me so much helpful information. I will be sure to follow your instructions and only include information that has been provided by external/reliable sources I can cite in the article. Bstro18 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation

I am an extended confirmed user. The Welcome to Articles for creation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation) page says:

"Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers.

However, when it do a search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search) for an article that I might consider writing I get this message:

"The page "(the name I enter)" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review,...

Has my account been marked is some way to cause this? BuffaloBob (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@BuffaloBob: When you view the search result, the name I enter should be in red for nonexistent articles. Use that link to open the edit form for that page. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@BuffaloBob: The message you see is this as found here. It is a system message and is shown to all users when that query is searched. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As Victor Schmidt said, simply click the redlink that is shown and you will be prompted to create it. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I see, my error as I had submitted, without reading the caution, my last article, fairly simple one, in AfC, and thought that might have changed my status. Thanks for your help. BuffaloBob (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The recent wording tweak has confuzzled at least two other editors in recent days. I've asked if maybe it can be clarified here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting creation of a location map

Hi everyone! I was wondering if someone could create the location map of the city of Islamabad or the Islamabad Capital Territory, so that it appears under Module:Location map/data/Pakistan Islamabad. Thanks in advance! Toofllab (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab: Welcome to the Teahouse! In case you don't find any mapmakers here, you might want to try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

An article with some errors and non-neutral language.

Hi again. I was categorizing articles when I came across Bayinnaung's Bell Inscription. It has some grammatical errors and a sentence that doesn't conform with Wikipedia's neutrality. Example: 'But the copied of the texts and the translations were so much mistaken.'

I know I could do it by myself, but I'm a bit too nervous to attempt that. So the reason I'm here is to ask how to put up that little text at the top that notifies anyone who views the article about the errors and the lack of neutrality, and that they could help by editing it.

Thank you everyone. TheFaeryMuse (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Steel yourself, TheFaeryMuse. Attempt that. Fixing grammatical errors requires a minimal amount of steel. When you've fixed them (and the sky hasn't fallen on you), fix the neutrality problem. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, TheFaeryMuse, and welcome to the Teahouse. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with your edit and then reverts it: then you can have a discussion about it per WP:BRD. If you really don't want to try, the things you are talking about are WP:Maintenance tags (which contains a list of the common ones). ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought about editing that article, if the OP is reluctant, but I am baffled how to improve "hanked in the middle of a road". I will stay far away. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the source, it wasn't hanging in the middle of the road, but was taken from the temple or pagoda of Gaudama muni near the old stone fort in Arracan city. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, FaeryMuse, you can also describe your concerns about accuracy and neutrality at Talk:Bayinnaung's Bell Inscription. But I encourage you to jump in and make some changes! Not sure how notable the inscription is in the grand scheme of things. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone Pelagic, Hoary, ColinFine. Thanks for responding. I'll try to edit it, but like Pelagic pointed out, I'll first find out if it's notable. Also, I'm not exactly sure how to comment in these. I just tapped the edit button, typed under your messages, copied the format that links the commenter's username and talk channel, and changed it to link to mine. Is there a better way to do this? Thank you. BTW I use mobile. TheFaeryMuse (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TheFaeryMuse. The way you replied worked fine, and notified me (and I presume the others). The only thing you didn't do was indent your reply, which you can do by starting the line with one or more colons (':'). If you start with one more colon than the message you're replying to, it will indent it one step further. Also, you signed your reply in a way that didn't add the time and date. If you sign with four tildes (~~~~) it will automatically add your signature and the time and date.

Alternatively, the way I reply on pages like this now is by picking [reply] that the software displays at the end of every post - that handles the notification, indenting, and signature for me. I don't know whether it is available on mobile though. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Red highlighting

Why are some terms and names highlighted in red? Augnablik (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Augnablik! Welcome to the Teahouse! We call those red links, and they signify that the article they link to doesn't exist. For example, this article exists, but this one doesn't. Usually, these links indicate good topics that need an article, but don't yet have one. More info is available at WP:RED. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So, Bsoyka, a red link is one that an editor used but it doesn't work ... as contrasted with a topic that should have had a link but doesn't? Augnablik (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik, a red link is simply a link to a page that doesn't exist. Maybe the editor mistyped the link (Caat instead of Cat), maybe it's a link to a page that doesn't exist yet but they think it should (like List of Most Awesome Astronomical Objects, I think that would be great), maybe it's a link to page that shouldn't exist ever (199.208.172.35 is the best IP editor of all time), or maybe it's a page that once existed but got deleted. There are many reasons why a red link might exist. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik Hi there! In your case, if you create the page User:Augnablik with some information about you, then your username will display blue text instead of red. For more information, see WP:User pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing categories

Hi! I've recently started working a bit on categories for members of academies and learned societies. Typically the category is called "Members of the <name of academy or society>" and this might be in the category "<name of academy or society>" together with other pages related to the academy/society. This makes sense I think, but today I came across an academy that only has a category "<name of academy>" where both the main page and members are listed. I would like to create a new category "Members of the <name of academy>" within the existing one and then move all the members to the new category. It's less than 20 people so it is not much work right now. Is this considered okay? SakurabaJun (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi SakurabaJun. You might find some general guidance on this in Wikipedia:Categorization or you might try asking specific questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. You could also try being WP:BOLD and create a new category if you think it needs to be created; if someone comes along and disagrees with you, then perhaps you can figure out what to do then through talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly! -- SakurabaJun (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Pageviews and wikilinks

When a reader visits a new article using a wikilink, does the new article receive a pageview? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: When a reader visits an article (new or old, using a wikilink or from another website), the article receives a pageview. For more information, see Wikipedia:Pageview statistics. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

It is my great pleasure to talk to you. I want to make a Wikipedia page for my company. May I know the procedure. Sumitgigde (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sumitgigde: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. If an article is written about your company, you will have no control over it. An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sir I want get link from Wikipedia. May I know the correct way Sumitgigde (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your company is not notable and your attempts to spam it on talk pages is disruptive. Please stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sumitgigde Hi there! In order for an encyclopedia article about a company to be included on Wikipedia, the company must meet the criteria detailed at WP:NCORP. Many companies do not meet these criteria. GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You have inserted a hyperlink for gigde.com into several articles and a Talk page, all of which have been reverted as spam. If you continue this forbidden practice, you will be indefintely blocked. You also created a very short draft Draft:Sumit about yourself, with no references. This was Declined. The only way there can be an article about you or the company is if people with no connection to you have published content about the company or you in reliable sources that can be used as references. Is such content does not exist, please stop, as all you are doing is wasting the time of volunteers draft reviewers. Lastly, you wrote "my company", but on the company website you are not named as part of the Team. Are you an employee? Special rules apply. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about Wiktionary

Why can't we link words to Wiktionary, words that might be unfamiliar to general readers but don't have Wikipedia articles? Is it for technical or philosophical reasons? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with {{Wikt-lang}}? ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I went to {{wikt-lang}, but its about a template. My original question stands. (Left off a parenthesis in example because an error message popped up.) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: This is explained in the page Shantavira linked to below, but bascially you will need to tell the software to go to the sister project for the relevant page, and the way you do this is by using the sister project's shortcut code in the link syntax. For example, if I want to add a link to the Wikitionary entry for the word apple, I would format the link like [[:wikt:Apple|apple]] so that when the reader clicks on "apple" it takes them to the Wikitionary entry for the word and not the Wikipedia article about the fruit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I needed to know. I did check out his link, but I didn't know how to use the code. I wonder why I haven't seen this in use before... -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#How_to_link. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this worthy of an edit?

Someone has been following me around saying that a man should always be listed before a woman. I'm confused by this. It's clear that either the man or woman can get listed first, since there are many articles that have either one first. The page I edited previously did not mention the parents. I added a new sentence to include the parents' names. It read:

"She was the daughter of Klara, née Kammer, and Theodor Gotzmann, a director of the Reichsbank."

The person who has been following my edits changed it to:

"She was the daughter of Theodor Gotzmann, a director of the Reichsbank, and his wife Klara, née Kammer."

Not only does it sound worse and flows awkwardly now, it's splitting up their names. Klara and Theodor Gotzmann reads easier than Theodor Gotzmann and Klara. Putting his profession at the end is easier to read as well. However, someone changed my edit simply because he believes the man should be first. I'm confused by this and I think this is destructive. It's a useless edit for personal reasons, and it distrupts the flow. Is this harmful editing? It's scary because he is threatening to block my account when literally all I did was add "Maria and Thomas Holl" to an article. He is threatening to block me from editing because it's apparently important that I say "Thomas Holl and Maria" instead. I didn't even notice. I have put the father's name first in my edits when I thought it made more sense. I don't know what to do. I need to make sure putting the father first is not a wikipedia rule that I'm breaking, because that is what the person is telling me and saying he will block me for.

Emmy Gotzmann is the page. Thank you for all your help. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Helpfulwikieditoryay: The only block threats I see are for edit warring and possibly using alternate accounts inappropriately. Don't engage in an edit war. Its clear that things are not going well between you and the other editors. I suggest staying away from these types of edits until things cool down and then restarting the discussion to get consensus on your proposed changes. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I stopped editing on pages where he reverted. He didn't gain consensus, but I'm not going to continue editing. I don't think he's saying it's edit warring, because I haven't touched those edits in several days and I told him repeatedly I won't again. He randomly accused me of using an alternate account. The problem I have is the specific edit he made on the page I linked. I need some guidance on that. I don't know why he keeps reverting my edits. The specific thing he threatened to block me for was including "Maria and Thomas Holl" in an article. That's what I'm confused about. He is saying I'm "reversing" the order of the parents, because he believes a man needs to be first, when I did not reverse anything. Thank you for your reply. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Helpfulwikieditoryay the user you are speaking of appears to be User:DrKay, an administrator. Judging by the other editors commenting on your talk page, I suggest that you listen to the advice of others because further problems could be interpreted as WP:Disruptive editing. If you feel like your actions are being unfairly judged, please tell the editor that you feel as such civilly. Try and diffuse the debate at the article talk page. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! What I'm confused about is why the user is threatening to ban for for adding the parents' names of the article subject. I happened to put the mother first, because that was the way it was written when I read the info and cited it in the article. This specifically is what I am being threatened to be banned over. The user reversed my edit to put the father first, and then accused me of reversing the names when I didn't reverse anything, I just wrote the names. I think his edits are against wiki rules. I also believe his use of power over me to threaten to ban me over his opinion is against the rules. I have not gotten any advice on this. That's why I'm asking here. I want to ask someone if it's a bannable offense to list a mother then father. And why is he reversing the edit? Why can he reverse it after I wrote it because he wants the man first, but I can't write new info if the mother is first? I want to ask if his behavior is ok. I haven't receieved any guidance on this, but this user is harassing me tremendously. Is there somewhere we can ask? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How to Submit my Wikipedia Page for Review

I just created a wikipedia page, but I just don't know how to submit it for the review. I would appreciate your kind assistance. Thanks. Pyithu (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Pyithu and welcome to the teahouse! if you're talking about your draft David Thang Moe, it has been submitted and unfortunately declined. while you're waiting for your review, you should improve your draft by finding reliable (usually published news sources), independent (not from or directly influenced by Moe), and significant coverage of Moe. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pyithu. According to Google Scholar, David Thang Moe's most cited paper has only been cited 11 times. It does not seem that he meets the notability guideline for academics. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is worlddata.info a reliable source?

I saw an edit request sourced by a worlddata.info page. I am doubtful as to whether or not the website counts as a WP:RS as I couldn't find any peer revies, the site is not scholarly, and that the site cites the origins of its sources but not the sources themselves. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can try asking at the reliable sources noticeboard to see if anyone has any input as to the site's reliability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Entry Declined

I get the messege that your article looks like Advertisement. I had written two lines and had given supportive links also. I am unable to understand how i will make it good so that i can be considered for Entry Article on Wikipedia Dr Zakir Malik Bhallesi (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

At Draft:Zakir Malik Bhallesi, the award is not prestigious enough to support notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), there is no evidence that Bhallesi qualifies as Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Zakir Malik Bhallesi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing in the draft establishes notability, which is why it looks like the reviewer marked it as promotional. I'll also caution you that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright image

How to know whether particular image from website can be published in wikipedia or not ? how to know whether it has has copyright laws or free to use ? Shwetamits (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

hi @Shwetamits and welcome to the teahouse! firstly if neither the site nor the page itself has copyright information, assume it's copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. if there is copyright information in the site (check pages like "about" or "licensing", or find the word "copyright" or "license") then compare the license of the image with the list at File copyright tags/Free licenses. if it appears there, you're good to go! if it doesn't, unfortunately it cannot be uploaded here. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. will try. Shwetamits (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shwetamits: Hi and welcome. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that is, it contains content that is free, with limited exceptions. We can upload a file to Wikimedia Commons or locally if it allows both commercial use and derivatives. However, if the content isn't free, it may still be usable under a claim of fair use when uploaded locally. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Shwetamits (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia so unfriendly to new editors?

I'm a new editor, but a long-time reader. What prompted me to write this was a Wikimedia banner asking to report to Wikimedia (UK chapter I think) examples of blatant underrepresentation of women in the articles. The banner seemed absurd: of course women (and many other groups) would be underrepresented as long as new editors that try to do edits different from spelling corrections are harassed when they write anything that doesn't fit average editor's worldview, no matter how neutral with regards to the sources the edit is.

As I've started editing, I've encountered two very strange practices and, although I couldn't find them in the list of perennial policy proposals, decided to ask here why they still exist. These practices seem very counter-productive, and seem like something that would've been discussed many times previously.

BRD is a well-kept secret. This would sound strange to any experienced editor, but as a new editor, you won't learn about BRD easily. Sure, you might stumble to the policy accidentally, but more likely than not you wouldn't know about it - and its essential to productive contributing to today's Wikipedia. After I registered, someone added a welcome message to the talk page with two dozens of links to various policies and essays. Even if I were to read all of them - I don't think BRD is amongst them.

Why isn't BRD policy made prominent to new editors on sign-up? Why is there no notification for new editors saying something like "your edit just was removed by other editor - if you think it should be in the article - please create new section on the article's talk page"?

I've tried editing Wikipedia a while ago and was discouraged by immediate removal of my first edit. I only was able to figure it now only because of a conversation with someone from Wikimedia who explained how policies work. I'm sure some of contributors who are seen disruptive may not really understand how BRD works - and there are definitely a lot of people who tried to edit in good faith and were discouraged after a near-immediate revert. I know a few personally.

Harassment under the guise of BRD. There are editors who write little, but would do a lot of reverts with comments like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, or something like 'sourced'/'per consensus' if they're reverting a removal. Obviously, any of such comments sounds like a fair concern, and I'm sure most of such editors are acting in a good faith. However, there is an issue with the practice.

'Discuss' means to initiate a conflict with another editor on a public forum and many simply aren't comfortable with this. Many would prefer to let it slip. (A funny example I was able to correct was a statement along the lines of "John Maynard Keynes blamed Russian and Jewish natures for mass murders in the USSR" added to WP a decade ago. Of course Keynes didn't write this, besides being married to a Russian, but the statement remained in two articles for a decade because removal of the statement was promptly reverted as 'this is sourced', sounded so plausible, and no editors felt bold enough to challenge the addition in talk for a decade.) But I guess that's the nature of BRD, which is massively valuable for Wikipedia.

Where it becomes problematic is there are editors who abuse reluctance of others to discuss. They would do reverts but won't reply when asked to explain their position on the talk page. My impression is that such reverts are usually done in a good faith, but (judging by their frequency) often without evaluating the referenced source - just because the edit doesn't fit the editor's world view. Some of such editors aren't shy to claim such motivation directly in talk or an edit comment. Whereas editor who adds content needs time to write it and to challenge deletion on talk page, deleting editor doesn't have to spend any time thinking of the revert: worst thing that could happen is being challenged on the talk page, which could then be ignored without consequences. I think its obvious how this harms editors from underrepresented groups, and why they describe this as harassment.

What I don't understand is why, for example, an editor could be blocked for adding spam systematically, but doing a few deletions with meaninglessly short comments and refusing to substantiate them on the talk page would result in a warning at best? Surely both are equally destructive? PaulT2022 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@PaulT2022: Wikipedia has processes for when an editor does not reply, yet continues to revert; are you having this issue? --VersaceSpace 🌃 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace thank you. Asking about a slightly different situation: when an editor reverts something once, then doesn't reply and doesn't attempt to revert re-added content again; then they might revert something else in the same article, and the story repeats, or go to another article and do reversions there etc. So there would be a pattern of deletions without clear reason and intent to discuss, but no edit warring. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@PaulT2022: edit warring only takes place on one article. There are some exceptions to that but its very uncommon for edit wars to take place through several articles. In my view, however, statements like WP:OR and WP:UNDUE are perfectly acceptable reasons to revert something. If someone doesn't get what that means, they could simply read the links. --VersaceSpace 🌃 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace I apologise if I was unclear in describing the situation. Obviously, there's no issue with using WP: acronyms in edit comments. However, I've seen WP:OR used when the OR wasn't obvious - followed by refusal to explain how the source could be summarised in the view of the editor who claimed OR. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

PaulT2022, in those cases, that's someone breaking the rules. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@PaulT2022. At its heart, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a never-ending discussion about the sum of human knowledge. There are going to be some outgoing and friendly people, and there are going to be some less-so individuals. But there’s no way around that, because most of us (I presume) are trying to help the site, not hurt it. WP:BRD isn’t going to work every time, but you can try to resolve the problem by going to the resolution noticeboard. There’s always going to be some sour eggs here, but we have to work with them nonetheless. But if they persistently aren’t willing to discuss their actions, then they might have to be sent to the WP:Drama board. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was also new learner one day. My edits were was deleted. Bcos I wasn't correct. Then I went through many helpful videos on YouTube to understand Wikipedia guidelines, what to edit, how to edit and many more things. I suggest to take thorough knowledge and then start the editing. Best luck. Shwetamits (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Page rewrites

Hey there! I'm new here and I've been working on a complete rewrite of an article to make it more descriptive and informative. It's on my sandbox and it isn't finished yet; however, when I do get it done for, how would I go about getting something as major as a complete rewrite approved for usage on the actual article? I know it's a bit of an ambitious goal for a newcomer, but I am rather passionate about the article's subject matter and I wish to be able to provide more information about it. Many thanks; Jamtri (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your rewrite User:Jamtri/sandbox is totally unsourced so not acceptable, it would be best to make incremental changes to the article itself, rather than re-writing, with each change having a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; as I stated before, it isn't finished yet. Your idea does sound good though, I'll think about it. Thanks; Jamtri (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jamtri, TRIS is giving you good advice. In addition you'll find it much easier to create an acceptable article if you add inline citations for every assertion as you write. As it is you're going to have to go back over that article and for literally every assertion find and add a citation.

You sound like you may be an expert in this subject? FWIW, experts often have a very difficult time here because they tend to want to write from their own knowledge. You can't do that here. We need inline citations for every assertion. valereee (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current version of GRLevelX is outdated, and the four references useless. Whenever I've done a major rewrite of an article I have done it incrementally, being clear to describe what I did in Edit summaries. Often, I also first posted my intentions on the Talk page of the article. Each time you revise or add a section, have the references. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged the article, which was largely missing inline citations, to let you see what kinds of support from references we need. It seems to have been created by a single-purpose account in 2009, and it hasn't gotten much attention since then. valereee (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

Hello everyone, I've made some minor edits to the Video on Demand article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand). I have tried to structure the information to make it more understandable. But they were reverted. I work with topics: IPTV, OTT, VOD and thought I could share my knowledge here. Could you please help me with some clear information why my edits were reverted? Iitsearcher (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, litsearcher, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted by a particular editor or editors (I haven't looked). That editor or those editors are the people to ask why. They may have given reasons in their edit summaries; otherwise, ask them on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• The edits were reverted here by Praxidicae with the comment "spam". I tend to agree with that assessment: your edits did little more than add a link to a blog from a marketing executive at SetPlex (a company selling such a service). (Technically, Praxidicae's edit was a bit more than a revert, they also added a citation to The Verge, a reputable online source.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your help. Iitsearcher (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Self Made

In Wikipedia, not everyone should be famous if they would like to make a wikipage about themselves, and should be done as such. Authenticity is important, especially as a freelance photographer. I feel it is degrading and illegal because it about free speech? Or is that no longer allowed in America? I am speaking on behalf of myself and the company and people I have worked for. People could steal and screen shot my images in this day and age. I would love the wiki page to help and get freelance artist without the big budget the help they deserve. Realjamesgalan (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a country, and it isn't exclusive to America. I suggest you take a brief read of what the First Amendment actually says because you don't seem to understand. Free speech means the government cannot persecute (or prosecute) you for dissent or expressing your opinions. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to put up with it and it doesn't mean that it's protected from consequence, especially from private individuals, organizations or companies. Tl;dr Wikipedia isn't the government and your argument is pointless. 1A isn't insulation from consequence. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Realjamesgalan: Hi, and welcome. In the United States, where the WMF's servers are, the first amendment gives citizens free speech. That means that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (from the constitution). However, free speech doesn't mean the WMF (which is not the government) has to keep everything someone wants to keep on its servers. Also, it isn't recommended to write about yourself, because then you would have a conflict of interest. However, if you really want to, please check notability first to see if you are notable enough, and be sure to write neutrally. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Realjamesgalan: This ought to explain the fatal flaw in your argument, if the words from Praxidicae and weeklyd3 aren't sinking in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Realjamesgalan. I have checked and have found no evidence that you are a notable person. This is an encyclopedia and self promotion simply isn't allowed here. There are plenty of social media sites and blogging platforms where you can promote your photography. So, try Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Notable person in your own opinion. I lived in England, traveled Europe, taken photos there and lived in Las Vegas, took photos for plenty of famous people there but the work goes uncredited. I have videos shaking Drakes hand, @ on twitter by Virgil Abloh himself, did a BTS with 50 Cent at CnT in the art district of Las Vegas and the list goes on for NDA. Freelancers and underground photographers such as myself must prevail against the words such as yours. We find "No evidence" it's because were too busy getting the evidence for others. Self promotion? NO. My article was explaining what I do and who I work for aka Myself and tech company who makes DJ Helmets for well known artist which is all under NDA speaking for "Evidence" So how in the backend of things am I self promoting when i'm speaking that I work with high end clients but can't seem to redeem myself for a simple wiki page. I understand that it highly not suggested but never said it was not allowed? I am on twitter, instagram. Do I have to pay a third party company for non biased information but somehow feed them the information about me? This is not an argument and I'm not upset but merely confused. Notablitiy goes unnoticed when your doing your job as a photographer correctly. But the photo work is being seen and used by others. On websites, other pages, but credited improperly so might as well tell the truth. So no bias accounts were ever mentioned or even lack of information. Where I was born, and what I do. Simply that is it. Now i'm in the works of creating my own website to publish more of my work in the safe space. Realjamesgalan (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Realjamesgalan, there is no evidence available through a good faith Google search that you are currently notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and therefore you are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography. We are not interested in your reminiscences about your life. We are interested in only one thing: whether or not independent, reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to you specifically. When we say independent we mean 100% independent. If you pay somebody to repackage information that you feed to them, that is not independent. That will not fly on Wikipedia. Do not waste your money. You are young and just beginning your career. Maybe in a couple of years, you will be notable. Not now. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Realjamesgalan, the definition of "notability" here differs from most people's. Clearly it differs from yours, and it certainly differs from mine. But Wikipedia-defined "notability" is what's required. You're free to complain about this, but your complaints here will get you nowhere. (For a chance of success, try interesting a journalist in the matter.) All the best with your website. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Realjamesgalan: For more information on Wikipedia's definition of "notability", you may read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Creating your own web site to explain what you do and who you work for sounds like a great idea! GoingBatty (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Realjamesgalan:. If you feel that your work is significant, and is being used by others without credit to you (both ideas possibly quite reasonable) then, in addition to the suggestions others have made before me--i.e., availing yourself of social media sites (which Wikipedia is not) or setting up your own website--you might consider registering your work for copyright. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia when creating a new article

Hello, I am currently working on a draft for an article covering a media franchise for which the two major entries (Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 2) already have very well established articles, and as a result a majority of my draft will likely end up consisting of copying and rephrasing large blocks of text from these preexisting articles. I've read through WP:COPYWITHIN but it only seems to cover what to do when copying text into a preexisting article and to my understanding the creation of a page entails copying over the text from the sandbox in what is essentially a single edit, therefore severing it from the edit history of the sandbox that originated it. Does this mean I will have to attach a dummy edit listing the sources as soon as the draft is accepted or is there a more convenient way? Orchastrattor (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor: When the draft is approved, it is moved not copied, so all the history stays with it. thanks being aware of the copyright and attribution requirements. RudolfRed (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Thank you, but then that raises a different question in that I had already used my user sandbox to test out some wiki syntax before blanking it and starting work on my draft. Does the moving process have some way of discriminating between relevant and irrelevant edits when transferring the page history? Orchastrattor (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Orchastrattor I think that the best thing for you to do is to create a Draft using the WP:AFC process, giving it the new name you intend to use. That will create a fresh edit history. Then you can copy-paste whatever parts of the other articles you want to use, with edit summaries like "Copied from Team Fortress Classic, see that article's edit history for attribution" and so on until you are happy with everything. Then you can either submit the draft for review or WP:MOVE it yourself into Mainspace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The first higher living organisms to survive orbit in outer space: Able & Baker OR Belka & Strelka?

I feel like I'm going crazy, so many source keep saying that Belka & Strelka Soviet space dogs were the first to be recovered alive. But Korabl-Sputnik 2 was on 19 August 1960 (Belka and Strelka's mission) while Jupiter AM-18 (Able & Baker) was 28 May 1959. They all came back to earth alive. As one is monkeys and the other dogs, they are both higher organisms, right? Why does everywhere, including Wikipedia keep saying they the one in 1960 came first. The American source (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/blazing-trail-space) says they traveled some 480 km (300 miles) up which is into orbit, while what I've been able to read in English about Russia is saying (https://www.drewexmachina.com/2020/08/19/korabl-sputnik-2-the-first-animals-recovered-from-orbit/) 306 by 339 kilometer orbit. Lover of Blue Roses (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

[I'm new to Wikipedia, if this is the wrong place to post my question, please let me know.]

Edit: Okay it seems that Belka & Strelka were the first to reach *orbit* rather than sub-orbit. This is not a height above earth, hence my confusion as both pass the Kármán line, but a speed needed to complete one orbital revolution (and become an artificial satellite) or reach escape velocity. It seems very strange to me that one should be considered the first animal in space to be safely returned and not the other as both were in space. Would editing to mention that one was the first in space, and the other the first in orbit, (and then recovered) make sense?

I believe that the first animals in space were fruit flies (if using the Karman line, [source], [source 2], [source 3]) P.S. I'm pretty sure that your question is fine, as long as it sticks to the central topic of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia (WP:FORUM). I could be wrong, though. Qoiuoiuoiu ( talk ) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lover of Blue Roses Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This question could probably have gone to the reference desk or to a WikiProject in this field. The Teahouse is for new users who have troubles with editing and the like.

Asparagusus (interaction) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay thank you! I will check out the reference desk.

@Qoiuoiuoiu I did see that too, but I think that while fruit flies are complex organisms, due to the mammal focused human-view I don't think they count for this. They count as first life sent to space and safely returned though of course. [And! They traveled only 66 miles (100 kilometers) which seems to be considered in space (above the 100km border). So then it's extra strange that Belka would be considered in space and not Baker] Lover of Blue Roses (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Hello. About One piece genre, doesn't it also have action and comedy? Or is a website information necessary? Wolfp5 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wolfp5, welcome back to the Teahouse. A reliable source would be needed to add genres to any article, including one on an entry in the One Piece franchise - our personal opinions on genre are not sufficient (many edit wars have been fought over such things!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wolfp5: Also for future reference, AFI, BFI, and AllMovie are great sources you can use to locate genres. When they disagree, list the genre that a majority agree on and be sure to cite them. It's also generally a good idea to begin a discussion on the article talk page, especially when those sources aren't in agreement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How to Request Editor Action

Hello! I'm an individual being paid for Wikipedia contributions. Under Wikipedia policy, I am not able to make direct edits but instead may suggest changes on Talk pages. How do I bring attention to my suggested edits so that they will be made? I know there is a feature to assist with this but I can't remember what it is or how to utilize it. Thanks! IAScomms1930 (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Edit requests. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

IAScomms1930 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

IAScomms1930 please note though, that you need to supply a reliable independent source, which none of your many requests have included so far, we are not here to promote the Institute for Advanced Studies for you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What is {delete|Cross-wiki spam}} Template?

Please tell me fast what does this template mean and for which reason this is Added? How to get rid of this template after it's added ? Baruahranuj 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Baruah ranuj - do you mean {{Db-cross-wiki spam}}? That redirects to {{Db-g11}}, which is a speedy deletion tag (per criterion G11), and it can be contested by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button. Where are you seeing this template? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Symphony No. 40 (Mozart)

Key signature is wrong for Movement 2. Should be 3 flats. Lsaul52 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lsaul52 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Concerns about a particular article should be directed to its associated talk page, in this case, Talk:Symphony No. 40 (Mozart). 331dot (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact, a user called "Double sharp" raised this on the talk page in 2017, but nobody replied. I will continue this discussion there. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate links and rowspans

Anyone care to add an opinion to this discussion? The page gets little (but fervent) attention. Some new perspective is always nice. BradVesp (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Duplicate links and rowspans. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. That is the link. Sorry for the error. BradVesp (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely unhelpful Help search

Hi,
I want to add the template for WikiProject Hospitals to a page. Obvious question: what is the syntax of the template? I applied the Help search to "Template WikiProject Hospitals". Restricted the search to Help to avoid a flock of irrelevant results such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. The result was "There were no results matching the query." =8~/ Nonsense! Please find the syntax of the template.
Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PeterEasthope, welcome to the Teahouse. Searching for "Template: WikiProject Hospitals" leads to Template:WikiProject Hospitals - the punctuation makes all the difference. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But really, necessity of the colon is arcane. The search without the colon should produce a result. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: The easiest way is to find an article already in that project, then check the talk page for how the template is used. For example, from Talk:Adventist Health, I see this: {{WikiProject Hospitals|class=Start|importance=Mid|needs-coord=yes}}. If you have more specific questions on that project template, try asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hospitals RudolfRed (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I found an example but every instance doesn't have every optional parameter. A straightforward search should find the specification. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Most visitors are only readers and the search box is limited to encyclopedia articles by default. Other types of pages are organized in namespaces. You can search a specific namespace by selecting "Search in" and then "Add namespaces" at Special:Search, or you can write the namespace followed by a colon. It may not be intuitive to relatively new users but there is some logic in it since the searched pages have the colon in their name like Template:WikiProject Hospitals. Templates, including their documentation, are in the namespace called "Template". "General Help" at Special:Search selects the two namespaces "Wikipedia" (the project namespace) and "Help" (which isn't for specific templates). See more at Help:Searching. It's linked on "Help" at the top right of search pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Also the first link returned by googling "template wikiproject hospitals" is the template page.
Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

loss of ability to edit

I edited the biography of a living person, David Paulides. When I clicked to publish my changes, something happened and my edit tab disappeared. The editors who were working on the article were listening to a man @Abe Cunningham who was very insistant that the subject of the biography have an arrest for a misdemeanor included in the article. This arrest happened over 25 years ago, and seemed so trivial to me, more of a misunderstanding. The subject is a sixty six year old author. I said that it doesn't improve the article to put that embarrassing arrest detail into the article, that it harms our subject who has said that he has lost income because his wikipedia page was so incorrect and negative (even the description on this link is wrong. He's known worldwide for his Missing411 investigation of missing persons, not Bigfoot.) I did my best to advocate for the subject's privacy, removed the arrest information, pointed out that even the statue of limitations for a misdemeanor in California is only a year, and looked into the very old sources being used. Abe Cunningham, who was extremely keen to get the arrest into the article, had even sent away to get the income, pension, and details of David Paulides career as a police officer. It seems so suspicious to me, like this person had a personal grudge against David Paulides I believe that I was right in erring on the side of removing the damaging arrest information. I don't think it was right for me to lose editing priveleges for that. Please pardon me for being so wordy here, and thank you so much for your help. Can I get my edit button back? I'm marikotambini

please no mobile view. David Paulides - Wikipedia Marikotambini (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marikotambini: According to your block log, you are currently not blocked, and in-fact have never been blocked. So, please explain further if you want a better answer. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

between my talk and my read tab at the top left of the page i used to have a tab labeled "EDIT." That tab is now missing. I don't know of another way to edit an article. Marikotambini (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an explanation, but I will ask, first, whether the editor is editing from a mobile device. Second, what they are describing sounds as if their interface has changed in some unexpected way. Since they say, "please no mobile view", I wonder whether they are on a mobile device and are (reasonably) trying to use Desktop View, and something has gone wrong. User:Cullen328 - You are the expert on editing from a mobile device. Do you have further questions to troubleshoot this problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Desktop on mobile does occassionally load improperly and the edit tab is not visible (or moves to the more tab), but a simple reload of the page resolves this visual glitch. So, basic troubleshoot, have you tried reloading the page and seeing if the edit button returns? If edit button does not reappear, does it apply to all articles or only that particular page? Slywriter (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Marikotambini, Slywriter is correct. Sometimes when editing with a mobile device on the desktop site, the various editing tabs can get scrambled up. I can clear that problem by clicking on the Watchlist tab. The "Edit source" tab will then return to its normal spot. As an administrator, I can confirm that you are not blocked in any way. Because of ongoing problems with vandalism, the article has been semi-protected indefinitely. Marikotambini, please do not edit against consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Marikotambini, the editor that you are complaining about is User:Able Cunningam, rather than Abe Cunningham, who is the drummer of the Deftones. Able Cunnigham made six edits to Talk:David Paulides in December, 2020 and then stopped editing. Accuracy is important. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear you, Cullen328, thank you for your time. if I might again advocate for the author who the article is about. He entrusted me with making best efforts to improve the article. The negativity and covert implications in the article makes Mr. Paulides look bad, and there is lost income as well. I can give many reasons and sources why if that's necessary. If I ask for reconsideration for the semi protected status, is that allowed? Also, if Mr. Paulides requests the page be deleted, will starting that process be futile? I'm sorry to be asking this, and I will abide by what you tell me.

It looks like I have no experience from the red name, but I have done a lot of editing on other wiki if that counts for anything. Previously many others besides me have tried to remedy the problems on Mr. Paulides page with no success. There's a lot of anger and frustration going back years from past editors who sought to make corrections that seem urgent to anyone who knows Mr. Paulides work. It's confusing and baffling trying to deal with both editing within the rules, and trying to find solutions. I had hoped to convince the editors working on the page that there are falsehoods and incorrect information in the article. I'm now trying to work more effectively than I have before in presenting both information and reliable sources. Mr. Paulides has said that he can't understand the impossibility of fixing a few falsehoods, but at this point it does seem impossible to me. Again thank you so much for your patience and help. With respect I will act as you tell me to do. Marikotambini (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marikotambini You say that you are making changes to an article at the request of the article's subject: This means you have a Conflict of Interest (click here) and you must follow the instructions at that link. As for the arrest: if things like arrest records are incorrect, that's one thing, but if an arrest actually happened, and there are reliable sources, and you want to remove that "embarrassing arrest detail ... [which] harms our subject", even if there is lost income: Please read BLP which explains the kinds of things that WP cares about: it may sound harsh, but WP isn't concerned if a well-referenced piece of info embarrasses the subject or not. The article is not for the subject's benefit, but rather, for the benefit of its readers. Now, if the arrest was for something minor, and it was a long time ago, then maybe the article doesn't need that info. But the changes need to follow WP policy, such as UNDUE, rather than an embarrassment reason or the wishes of the article's subject. Hope this helps, and please read COI linked above. Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, BLP is not the policy that says an article is not for the benefit of its subject. I can't find the policy I had in mind; maybe someone else will chime in. Sorry for the confusion. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You're thinking off Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, which is an essay asking the reader to think twice about whether actively striving to get an article of them onto Wikipedia is in their best interests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I said it badly. I emailed David Paulides and said that I had made one change on his biography page. I said I could possibly try to make more. He emailed back that if I could it would be helpful. That is the only communication with David Paulides I've ever had. I don't know him or anyone of his family or acquaintances. I don't know him at all. I know his work. That's it. I have no stake in doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikotambini (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marikotambini Sorry if I misunderstood your relationship with him; I just went by He entrusted me with making best efforts to improve the article. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ty, reloading the page didn't fix it. the loss of the edit tab applies to all pages. Marikotambini (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It's simply that I don't have a cell phone. That's why I wanted to be sure to say "no mobile." I looked through my preferences and didn't find a fix for the problem. I can tell you that I lost that tab suddenly, and it was as I clicked "publish" for a change I made. ty so much Marikotambini (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Marikotambini, if you have lost the ability to edit all pages, how are you able to edit this page? Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's possible they're using the Reply tool at the ends of comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Leaving that issue behind and responding to being told not to edit David Paulides Biography because "Because of ongoing problems with vandalism, the article has been semi-protected indefinitely. Marikotambini, please do not edit against consensus." Who granted such consensus? That is what a long string of people who clearly see the falsehoods on this page would like to know. Editors who have been trying to get the page corrected for years, including, according to David Paulides, some senior wikipedia editors, hit a brick wall. The biography page of David Paulides is being used by a "debunker" to debunk bigfoot and David Paulides. It's not the biography of a living person. It doesn't give any true information whatsoever about David Paulides. David Paulides is not in the bigfoot business. He had a former interest in bigfoot years ago. However, eleven years and ten books later he has almost nothing to do with bigfoot. By far he is known worldwide for The Missing411. The bio states that bigfoot is what he is known for. That is false. Also, that investigation is not as the page claims, a "conspiracy" That business was added by wikipedia. It doesn't come from David Paulides. It's up to wikipedia to prove that claim and give their sources for whatever conspiracy they imagine is going on. “The book[s are] just the stories of the missing, no hypothesis on cause is included"</ref> Upon requesting that the word, conspiracy, be removed, the editors working on the page decided that the word, conspiracy, improved the article and left it in! It is illogical. If there is no theory there can be no conspiracy.

Insistantly twisting together two, years-apart careers is incorrect and misleading. These are not the only reasons why the article is incorrect. The person who wrote the bulk of this page and had enough pull to get it protected status is the real vandal. Due to false information wikipedia is costing this author income approximately once every two weeks or so from people who say they saw the wikipedia page and therefore don't want to do business with Mr. Paulides. I know that an encyclopedia is not for the benefit of the subject. However, I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to do the subject harm, either, which is what all the wrong information does, not a matter of anyones opinion, but incorrect, misleading information. Does removing the word "conspiracy" sound like an opinion? No. At the very most essential level of the work is the persistant statement by David Paulides that he has no theory about why people are going missing. Even when pressed hard, four times in a row in his interview with Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM, he stated definitively that he doesn't know why and doesn't have a theory. I referenced this above. The above reasons are why not being allowed to edit this page against consensus makes me wonder who this consensus is. All of wikipedia's road blocks to correcting this article mean nothing. The article is faulty and incorrect in every possible way. Debunkers should not use a biography as a platform to discredit every bit of an author or scientist's work. I'll disclaim that I don't know David Paulides, am not acquainted with any of his friends or family, and live five states away from where he lives. I don't know him at all. I've communicated with him by email once. I don't have any personal stake here. If you intention in asking me the question from above was not to open this door, please pardon me. Following all the requirements of those before me has gotten them nowhere. Marikotambini (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Marikotambini, consensus reveals itself though the policy based input by experienced editors, not by drive by criticism by new editors who show zero understanding how of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines actually work in practice. An acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes what reliable sources say about the person and their entire life and career. We do not remove the indisputable fact that a person was once self-publishing stuff about Bigfoot being real just because the person has now moved on to self-publishing musings about unexplained disappearances in national parks. If this person is notable, then we will summarize what reliable sources say about his entire life and career. If reliable sources describing this person are pubishing falsehoods, then your gripe is with those sources, not with Wikipedia. If you can persuade those sources to withdraw or clarify what they have published, then the Wikipedia article can be modified accordingly. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, or to whitewash an article because the subject is complaining that his income is being adversely affected because we are accurately summarizing what reliable sources are saying about him. Please read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE. We will not back down. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Honestly I expected some contention. I didn't experience that. I understand and thank you for your patience, reasonable answer, and putting it clearly and in a way I could understand. I knew I was out of order in coming to you at all. I must ask your pardon for my own aggressiveness. It's not my usual way. Marikotambini (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I like Susan Gerbic, but I will gladly duke it out with her if I must! MikiBishop (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Self-paced online tutorials?

Now that I'm getting into adding citations on several Wiki articles I'm editing, I'm wondering if Wikipedia offers any self-paced online tutorials available on this sort of thing. That would make understanding and correct application of the information so much easier and avoid mistakes as well as uncomfortable corrections from Wiki powers-that-be later on. Augnablik (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik There is a useful video and lots of other links at Help:Referencing for beginners. I also made a short one some while ago at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. You can find other types of videos at Wikipedia:Instructional material. Hopefully one or more may be of interest to you. Don't worry about making mistakes - so long as it's obvious you made an error in good faith, it doesn't matter. OK - it's never nice having one's edits reverted. But we have >6.2million articles here, so corrections and communication is often abrupt and easily taken the wrong way. See WP:BEBOLD Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick! I think that "Referencing for beginners" link you mentioned is the one I started looking at and pretty soon threw my hands up in discouragement ... even though I have a doctorate and am quite used to citations. I'm always grateful when I see that someone has made a training tool because he or she too had difficulty with something that's supposed to work. Augnablik (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Augnablik: The Wikipedia adventure is the interactive tutorial. I have heard mostly good things about it, but never tried it myself. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  And thank you too, Tigraan. This looks good, though I'm in particular need of getting up to speed fast on citations. But as a newbie Wiki editor, at this point I don't know what I don't know. Augnablik (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

More secondary sources

Hi, my draft:ThaWave Podcast recently got rejected and the reviewer asked for "sources independent of the subject". I have added sources more sources; can someone please help cross-check this draft and advice where necessary?

Also, is the UNICEF is reliable secondary source? Thanks

Majokthefirst (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Since UNICEF is the only source you specify, Majokthefirst, I took a look at it. You cite two UNICEF pages. One (this one) is used as a reference for "This program educates the general public on the laws against child marriage and the repercussions this has on the mental and physical status of these children and the program is believed to have sent over 15 girls back to school" in which "this program" refers to "[a] recently created sensitization program dubbed 'Give her a pen, not a man'". So I infer the UNICEF page says this about "Give her a pen, not a man". Except that it does not. None of the strings "give", "15", "fifteen", and "sudan" appear within it. And therefore providing this page ("Last updated June 2022", and therefore before you digested it) as a reference for this assertion is fraudulent. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I forgot to specify I used the source you quoted above to define the prevalence of child marriage: Other sources are directly mention the subject. I will remove the said source and add a more relevant one. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majokthefirst (talk • contribs) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Majokthefirst, if what's presented as a source doesn't directly mention the subject then obviously it's not a source. But directly mentioning the subject, while necessary, is insufficient. The text of an article consists of a series of propositions. For example: "Opposition MPs Dawn Butler and Ian Blackford have both openly called Johnson a liar in the House of Commons." A reference for that needn't say that Butler and Blackford are opposition MPs (this is uncontroversial and can be verified via the articles about them), but it must say that they've both openly called Johnson a liar in the House of Commons. Alternatively, it could be supported by two references, one saying this about Butler and the other saying the same about Blackford. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I corrected this mistake and the article is good to go! Majokthefirst (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI - Your draft was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:R Nait

 Courtesy link: Draft:R Nait
I am editing this page but I need help to edit this page and gathering resources and please tell me how can I add a image in articles with mobile phone step by step Devine666 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This photo you'd like to add, Devine666: did you find it on the internet? -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I found it on the internet, Devine666 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case, you're probably not allowed to use it. --VersaceSpace 🌃 07:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What VersaceSpace said. But, Devine666, exactly where did you find it on the internet? -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sockpuppet. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Some device’s don’t have a canned edit summary

Why does only mobile app have canned edit summary, but the other devices do not? Is it only on phone? Can you compare between iOS and desktop? 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unless enabled in account preferences, canned edit summaries are only a part of the mobile app and not desktops or on the web. This page has more information. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why it is not designed for desktops, but for iOS? 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Canned edit summaries just aren't available on the English Wikipedia on browsers. From the page linked above: While this is a convenient feature for users, some may click or tap the buttons simply because the buttons are there, or perhaps they think they have to select one (i.e., they believe the edit will not be saved unless they enter a summary, which is not true). Consequently, one may see a substantial edit with the summary "Fixed typo" or other misleading summary. Hope that helps. Bsoyka (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Swapping to visual editor

I cannot figure this out

I cannot figure out how to switch from the normal editor to the visual editor. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@History Buff1239ubj In the top right corner click the image of the pencil and swap to the image of the eye. Note that the visual editor is not enabled in all namespaces - in some situations you will have to use the source editor. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. And also thank you for helping with Lord Clive-class monitor. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird transclusion

On Talk:Prince Rupert's cube, we have Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Rupert's cube transcluded, but the actual article talk page is empty. What's the technical reason for this? I don't see a relevant NOINCLUDE in the template. Ovinus (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus On Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Rupert's cube there's a pair of noinclude tags inside the #if parser function at the top and bottom of the template. The {{#if:yes|1|2}} part of the page is checking if "yes" is an empty string (which it isn't) so the content between the first and second pipes (i.e. "1") is returned, which in this case includes the noinclude tag. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories

How do I add certain categories to an article? I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try visiting WP:CATSPECIFIC and watching the video. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate In the source editor you add them using the same format as a link, e.g. adding [[category:1982 births]] to an article would add the article to the category 1982 births. By convention category links are placed at the very end of the article. In the visual editor the option to add categories is in the "page information" dropdown menu. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the responses! Appreciate it. Dissoxciate (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually recommend the Wikipedia:HotCat gadget because it shows buttons to add and remove categories on the list of categories itself. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 19:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing without citations

Hi, I am thinking of adding adding additional info to the page Khumar Barabankvi due to the fact I personally know one of his grandkids but I don't have citations. Am I allowed to do this?

Anonymous569 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Anonymous569, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that is not allowed - content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and not based on the personal knowledge or experience of editors. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not a matter of allowed. It will not last very long so why use your time. Some editors will "blame" you for moving something that is already part of an article that is not verified by reputable sources like your grandmothers handwritten recipe book.2603:8000:D300:D0F:B47F:8C30:9EA5:CF42 (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a matter of allowed as the link on "verifiable" shows. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Attacking midfielder football

How does one put on notice that a previously used article title has been superceded and what is its new reference yet cannot be found so easily by those who think they are in the know about the subject?2603:8000:D300:D0F:B47F:8C30:9EA5:CF42 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You could use a "hatnote" such as {{About}}, like is used at the top of Midfielder RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Attacking midfielder hasn't been an article since one day in 2005. It's a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with spacing edit

I've got a small problem, but it's bugging me. In the Film noir article, fifth paragraph of the Problems of definition section, look at the sentence "Alain Silver, the most widely published American critic...." You can see that "published" and "American" abut. I went to Edit source and added a space but nothing changed in the article. I added several more spaces in the edit screen, and same deal. You can see the extra spaces there. And it just wasn't when I hit Show preview, I put the edit through. I didn't have any trouble making other edits to the article. Any solution? (By the way, is there any way to link to specific sections of an article instead of the entire page? I'd like to start doing that, if possible.) -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's probably just in your head? I don't see anything, even when I zoom in (using my computer, Vector 2022 skin). You can link to specific sections with Film noir#problems of definition, like this, and it'll start at the section on the right of the hashtag. VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles, I can't see them abutting. HTML normally treats a thousand (or however many) consecutive spaces in the same way that it treats a single space. Yes, you can link to anywhere in a page (not only to a specific section). See Template:Anchor. (Vortex's method of linking will work too, as long as nobody retitles or amalgamates the section. The Anchor template is free of this problem.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

To my eyes they are just about touching. The real problem is that adding multiple spaces multiple times didn't make "American critic" budge at all. You can see the extra spaces on the edit page, and they don't appear in the article itself. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 102.0.1 (under MX-Linux), and my eyes show nothing wrong. If this abutting business worries you, consider using an alternative to whichever browser you're now using. (When I'm annoyed by Firefox, which is unusual, I use Chromium.) Mediawiki may or may not retain multiple spaces [see what I did there?] when it converts what we write into HTML: I can't be bothered to check. If it (sensibly) deletes all but one in a string of spaces, then the extra spaces are pointless. If it fails to do so, then, as I have said, they're ignored in HTML, so again they're pointless. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC) strikeout Hoary (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Mediawiki retains multiple spaces [see what I did there?] when it converts what we write into HTML. (I'm surprised that it does so.) Repeated spaces are ignored in HTML, so there's no point inserting them. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles, I (retired print editor, FWIW) have just changed the 4 spaces present when I looked to 1, and also see no difference, or problem in the display (using Firefox on Windows 11, if it matters). I suggest that if you are (still) seeing one, it might be an artifact or glitch of your current device, font, etc. Try accessing the article from a different device. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

When I finish with an article I do a double space search to find where extra spaces exist but do not readily show up especially if tabs have been inserted. Sometimes it is just the natural spaces between characters of certain type faces. Things can come out if say you cut and past it into an email message. Your time; your choise.2603:8000:D300:D0F:B47F:8C30:9EA5:CF42 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't appear relevant to the question. @Pete Best Beatles: Like the other replies, I see nothing unusual about the spacing in "published American". It's a normal space character. There are no unusual characters like a thin space. There are ways to make wider space but don't do it when there is a normal space character. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding citations and then doing a Captcha it won't do anything after doing Captcha

Help The babajaga (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends if it is WP's program doing it or your computer has stalled.2603:8000:D300:D0F:B47F:8C30:9EA5:CF42 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi The babajaga, welcome to the Teahouse. It's almost certainly not your computer which has stalled. Some users report issues with captchas and we often don't know why. Your account becomes autoconfirmed after four days and ten edits. Then you no longer have to enter a captcha to add external links. Can you wait for that? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, The babajaga. An easy mistake to make (as I did initially) is to enter the required 'word' in the CAPTCHA box and then hit the "Refresh" button next to it. This button actually means "I can't read the CAPTCHA text requested, please give me another example."

Instead, make sure you enter the requested word and then scroll down to the 'Publish change' button and hit that. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sad

I wish I could edit an article, but all of the articles are already edited. I don’t want to create a article because I’m not confident enough. What should I do. :( RandomDude6 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

RandomDude6 It would be an extremely rare thing for an article to be 100% complete and not need any changes. There are over 6 million articles here. You could click the "random article" button continuously to see if ones that need work come up. You can visit the community portal which has tasks that need to be done. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, RandomDude6, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can also find a WikiProject that interests you. WikiProjects focus on specific kinds of articles; not all of them are active, but their project pages typically include goals and resources at least. You can use this to find articles you'd like to work on – many lower-traffic articles need plenty of work, including things that are easier to do as a newcomer, such as spelling and grammar fixes and integrating with more links. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you RandomDude6 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Stay updated with current affairs and then add value to the article by editing. As Randomdude6 said, that there are plethora of articles which needs information. You can search " stub" articles which means information needed in article. Shwetamits (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also the Wikipedia:Task Center with lots of suggestions of things you can do. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

IP editor attempting to replace 'pro life' term with 'anti - abortion'

An IP editor has replaced mentions of 'pro life' in ‎Direct lobbying in the United States, Claudio Grech, and Cape Town Pride with 'anti-abortion'. The edit summary for the edits are just the words 'Wikipedia requires NPOV' or 'neutral POV'. I reverted the edit on Cape Town Pride but I want to ask: Is the phrase 'pro life' actually an NPOV violation or is the IP editor wrong? The phrase 'pro-life' is used interchangeably with the words 'anti abortion' in most news coverage so I'm confused about which term can be used. Thank you. Spodle^Talk 02:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spodle. It's controversial but we are an international encyclopedia. The terms pro-life and pro-choice were both chosen for promotional reasons and need context or prior knowledge to give them meaning. Readers from other countries may not know what they mean in the US. I don't know whether they are common in Malta and South Africa. Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 8#Requested move 19 May 2018 had some disagreement but decided on these moves:

• United States pro-life movement → United States anti-abortion movement
• United States pro-choice movement → United States abortion-rights movement

I agree with this. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Me too. "Pro-life" is inherently POV - who is "anti-life"? There are similar issues with terminology on the other side. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, the phrase 'pro life' sounds weird without context. Like there's an anti-life movement that is planning to destroy all hospitals to ensure the goal of their movement. It just sounds like if you are pro-abortion, you aren't for life. The only confusion I had was the use of 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' in news reports. Some use anti-abortion, and some use pro-life.

(some examples)

News articles that use 'pro life'
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/pro-life-dobbs-roe-culture-of-life/661394/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pro-life-is-not-just-opposing-abortion-vatican-says-after-us-ruling-2022-06-25/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/pro-life-young-women-roe-abortion.html

News articles that use 'anti abortion'
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07/joe-biden-roe-v-wade-chad-meredith
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/09/bbc-bitesize-gave-platform-to-extreme-anti-abortion-group
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/26/anti-abortion-states-split-on-how-to-enforce-ban-whether-to-prosecute-or-surveil-doctors.html Spodle^Talk 03:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It may often depend on who the author supports. It's impressive that the American pro-life movement has gotten so many to use the term. "Pro-life" could have meant a lot of things, e.g. concerning death penalty, assisted suicide, healthcare access, animal treatment, gun control, war, and so on. "Pro-fetus" would be more logical if you don't want to be called anti-something, but it doesn't sound as good. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How to add references

Ive been on here for like 10 mins now pls help Simohayhafan (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Simohayhafan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A good place to learn about referencing is this page. 331dot (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks Simohayhafan (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

prevention in posting article

in my recent article lurinjyoti gogoi was added a tag of not touching the notability of the person . but the sources are enough to show the notability. i'm felling like again and again i'm prevented from posting article in wikipedia. I hope anyone who doesn't know anytrhing on the article,just using references , don't try to determine the notability. i don't wanna violate any rules of the website but i at least know who is notable or not Baruahranuj 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj Notability in Wikipedia's somewhat stringent sense (see WP:GNG) has nothing to do with what you or I judge to be notable but rather is something long established by consensus among those who have been creating this encyclopaedia over many years. I note that you have removed the tag on the article which was placed there by Robertsky, who is an experienced new-page reviewer. I suggest that you continue to add reliable secondary sources to the article (which has not been deleted or draftified) so that it might be more likely to survive any deletion discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I had explained myself at my talk page, but since @Baruah ranuj is resistant to having the tag on the page, another NPP reviewer will look at the article as it is still in the NPP queue (as of writing of this comment). – robertsky (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baruah ranuj You say "I hope anyone who doesn't know anytrhing on the article,just using references , don't try to determine the notability". I will echo what Mike Turnbull said, perhaps in plainer language: The cited references are exactly what any reader or editor should use to determine a subject's notability. That is the policy here. Hope this helps. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a source on the person's biography. Is it secondary source ?Michael D. Turnbull

Baruahranuj 14:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Baruah ranuj. That link you supplied doesn't work for me but in principle newspaper articles are fine provided they are not based mainly on an interview. If they are, that's a primary source, otherwise, yes, it counts as secondary. Your main problem is to meet the requirements of notability for a politician. I'm no expert but I would say that this will be a challenge, since he has, so far, failed to get elected to a national position. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd add to provided they are not based mainly on an interview that they also shouldn't be based mainly on a press release. valereee (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, there is an encoded character at the end of the link @Baruah ranuj provided. Here's the working link: [25]. – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit cnflict) I've searched the newspaper to find the correct URL here. It appears to be a brief cv produced by the candidate himself prior to the election, so in effect is a press release. That newspaper has several hits on the person's name but as far as I can see they are all brief mentions, so fail the test of significant coverage, Baruah ranuj Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The details are written by digital desk as mentioned there . How you know that he himself provided pwn data? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruah ranuj (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Appears he is the President of a minor politcal party and lost (badly) in the one election he he ran for office. None of the candidates his party put forward in the election were winners. In my opinion he fails WP:GNG. David notMD (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How to cite a quotation from a dedication or foreword page

Try as I might, I couldn't find any way to cite a quotation from an author's dedication page — one of those up-front pages that has no page number. If I tried to write "Dedication by author" in the Pages field of the citation template, the result would put pp. before the quoted text. Nothing else in the various field choices worked well, either. Eventually, I just left off an attribution for the quote, but I know that's not correct. Augnablik (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe all you need to do is add |no-pp=yes to the {{cite book}} reference. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It may not be relevant for the exact citation you want to use, Augnablik but the {{rp}} template takes any text as a parameter, so you could use {{cite book}} as normal, with something like (if the dedication is on page "i") or even . Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

As Mike Turnbull intimates above, by convention books whose numbered page "1" is several pages into the book have all preceding pages (called collectively "Front matter", "preliminaries" or "prelims") numbered in lower-case Roman numerals. Sometimes these numerals (or some of them) are actually printed; more often they are not, but can be inferred by physically counting them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Turnbull and 90.205.225.65 (?) ... as I get more and more into Wiki citations, I'm beginning to wish there were some self-scorable tests we could take on this topic. I'm finding citations much more complicated than I expected, even though I'm fairly good at them outside of Wiki work. Augnablik (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

were magovanyika village is located

were magovanyika village is located Tafadzwa magovanyika (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tafadzwa magovanyika To find information about general information, WP:Teahouse is not the place. Instead, I would suggest you either try a Google search, or WP:Reference Desk. Narutmaru (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

About My account

my main id get blocked becouse of sockpupet policy but that time I didn't know much about sockpupet policy I request and apologise so many times but no one pay attention to my request Eventually I had to create a new account.But I am afraid that this id may also get blocked. Can you guys tell me what should I do so my new ID not get blocked Jaspreet Singh Riar (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocks apply per person, not per account. Since your original account Jaspreetsingh6 is blocked , you're not allowed to edit here. I see your original account has an active unblock request, please return to it. WP:GAB might be of interest. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaspreetsingh6, confirmation of six sockpuppet accounts. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Connecting with other editors on their Talk Page

I want to connect with another editor who I noticed fortuitously in the Teahouse is editing one of the same articles that I am, but not in reply to the message I saw. Long story short, I understand I'm supposed to be able to write him on his Talk Page ... but how? I don't see an option in the lefthand column. All I see there that's relevant to my query is an e-mail option, but that's not what I want. I would have assumed there'd be an option like Message on Talk Page near the e-mail option. Augnablik (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you click on the View History tab for that article you will see a list of contributors. Next to the name of each editor is a Talk link that you can use to access their talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Google Books

Is this a reliable source? How do you know if a book is reliable enough to be cited in an article? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 12:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Vortex3427, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally first you want to look at the publisher, which in this case seems to be Open Court Publishing Company, whose parent company is Carus Publishing Company. Neither company seems to be a vanity press, which means they are likely to be providing some sort of editorial oversight. The second thing to consider is whether the publishing company has some sort of fringe-y point of view that you were trying to insert into an article using this source as a support. What article were you wanting to use it for, and what assertion within that article were you wanting to specifically support? valereee (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for information on a character (Barb from Stranger Things). Would this be regarded as a useful source for analysis and/or factual info? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427, from a quick look at the book's description, it looks like a reasonable source for that. The key issue is always when you get to Stranger Things, and you add something sourced to this book, if you find other editors there object to this book, you can't just argue that since someone at Teahouse said it looked like a reasonable source, they have to allow it. There are 535 watchers on that page, 118 of whom visited recent edits, and the talk page has three archives. You may find you need to discuss this source there. valereee (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a basic rule of thumb for the reliability of any book or source? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427. Per WP:RS, it depends. WP:SPS says that self published sources aren't really reliable unless the author is an expert at it. We like sources with a tendency to fact-check what they publish. If you want to ask about the reliability of an individual source, there's a noticeboard for that. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427, reliability can be complicated, but the minimum is "is there evidence of editorial oversight?" If there isn't, the source is not reliable. valereee (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Report

Can somebody plz advise/ help out? I'm new to wiki reporting. My edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/117.198.114.157&oldid=1097228539) is not listed here: Special:History/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

Why? I am not sure if I have done the report right or it got throught or what happened. Special:Contributions/117.198.114.157 and Special:Contributions/117.198.112.181; the other similar ip seems to have socked and trailed me to another page for an edit war. Just wanna know if a regd user is doing em. The ip addresses look similar and got active around the same time.

• The user doubtfully poses POV neutraliser while pushing a non inclusive and pro majoritarian Hindu religious POV himself/ herself Fyi: Special:MobileDiff/1097214303
• claims "poor quality" while disrupting page and edit warring Special:MobileDiff/1097179392
• pretends "grammar" while pushing Hindu religious majoritarianism and ownership of langot see Special:MobileDiff/1097185206

Nick Moyes thanks for the invite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolicamaca (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.198.114.157 - 97.126.96.239 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nolicamaca, welcome to the Teahouse. Your report appears to have been added - see link above - but in order to try to tie the IP user(s) to a particular account, you would need to name the account (and check users can't publicly tie IPs to accounts in any case, just so you know). If you can prove enough behavioral similarities between the two IPs, you might be able to get those blocked for sockpuppetry, but you'd need to provide more information in the report itself - adding the information you posted here would be a good start.

A report to WP:ANI, WP:AIV or WP:AN3 - depending on the type of disruption - is usually faster and easier than an SPI. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey! @User:97.126.96.239 but the the edit is still not here though: Special:History/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

Just saw the checkuser clerk decline, while "behaviour investigation is pending". I have just been reading sourcing and editing for hours today and I'm hungry now. Will surely do it tomorrow if there's no progress. Thanks again. May the force be with you. Bye see ya. Nolicamaca (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nolicamaca, that's just a link to the edit history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, it's not a listing of currently active investigations. If you look at the page itself, the case you filed is listed. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I see! i think i found suspicious behaviour with a regd and and I'm collecting evidence for ANI! Tq.Nolicamaca (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nolicamaca This is not sockpuppetry - this is just how dynamic IP addresses work - they change within the same range on a regular basis. Sockpuppetry is the deliberate and deceptive use of multiple accounts/IPs for illegitimate purposes. Since you haven't provided any evidence of that IP address either illegitimately using an account or attempting to mislead by using multiple IPs I expect the SPI will be declined as unactionable and probably deleted as a malformed report. You should read WP:Sockpuppetry and User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI to understand what sockpuppetry is and what SPI clerks are looking for in a report. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Turns out your right. Have you seen above diffs? I guess ip addresses cannot be checked our linked to regd user due to privacy, right? In this case a loophole/ the misuse of privacy but the ip has stopped the disruption/ war. Nolicamaca (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review my article

review the article nilpawan Baruah And I wanna know one thing that if an article is created and it's not reviewed by any experienced editor . Will it be not visible to internet users if they search the keywords of the article's name? Baruahranuj 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Nilpawan Baruah, submitted to AfC for review, you have created other articles submitted to AfC and at least three articles for which you created directly as articles without going through AfC. Such articles are in a sort of limbo - not seen by internet searches such as Google - until either OK'd by someone from New Pages Patrol WP:NPP or 90 days pass without a NPP review. NPP may approve, move it to draft status, or delete. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Emails

Where should received emails be visible? My notifications include "Dur Godiva‬ sent you an email." but it isn't in my ISP's website inbox - there's no spam folder - or my Outlook inbox (all emails received go to both). On 30 June I left a message on Dur Godiva's Talk but there hasn't been any response. Mcljlm (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Normally, e-mail that I am sent goes to the address in my preferences. That's a bit weird that the messages are not being received. Have you confirmed your e-mail address? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The notification means that the user used Special:EmailUser/Mcljlm, for example via the "Email this user" link at User:Mcljlm, and our software sent a normal email to the address stored at Special:Preferences. Emails can be lost, for example blocked by spam filters before reaching a point where you can see them. If your Wikipedia mails never arrive (you can mail yourself for testing but may not get a notification) then consider trying another mail service for your Wikipedia account, e.g. at Comparison of webmail providers. Most communication at Wikipedia is on talk pages and it's optional to give an email address. Without it, you will lose access to the account if you forget the password. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I receive emails almost every day (sometimes more than one) about changes to articles before and since the notification about Dur Godiva‬'s email my address appears to be accepted. Mcljlm (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Legitimate account

If a user creates another Wikipedia account through the clean start technique and it is recognized as a legitimate account. How do he re-request extended confirmed permission if he can't say he already had an account with extended confirmed permission. Because users who use the clean start technique should not let others know that that user is the previous user they met. Because the only required contestants for such permissions are users with alternative accounts. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Princess Faye They can't. The whole point of a clean start is to start again from scratch, that means that they would have to re-earn any rights they had on the previous account naturally. If they just want to abandon one account in favour of another then they can just leave a note at an appropriate forum requesting transfer the of their user rights, along with some evidence that the same person is in control of both accounts, but that isn't a clean start - it's just a change of useername. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing my previously published edits to Watch This Page status

I've made some major edits on several articles for which I didn't check the Watch This Page box when I published them but now I wish I had. The reason I didn't at the time was because I had previously checked Watch This Page for the articles and thought that would trigger alerts for all future edits if other editors came along later and changed them. Only gradually did it dawn on me that I probably should have checked all my major edits each time I published them. I wouldn't want that to happen! Augnablik (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The edits should be in your contributions provided the pages haven't been deleted; you can then go to those articles from there and watch those pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 09:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jéské, but if I understand your feedback on my issue correctly, I don't think it quite matches the issue I was trying to describe. You see, I'm a little concerned that another editor might come along and revert or otherwise change one of my edits, especially major ones, and so I would like to be alerted whenever the page is changed in any way. Does that happen automatically once an editor asks for a page to be watched permanently? I thought so at first, but then later began to think I had to ask for it edit by edit. Augnablik (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik: pages ("articles") are watched in full, not edit-by-edit, so if you did add them to your watchlist in edit #1 then edit #2 should not remove it from your watchlist. There might be some subtle details with temporary watchlisting: if you do edit #1 on January 1st and add the article to the watchlist for 30 days, then do edit #2 on January 15th, the watchlisting will last only until February 1st, not February 15th.

See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist to edit your watchlist preferences, and see Help:Watchlist#Controlling_which_pages_are_watched for the manual. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tigraan ... but I'm still somewhat confused because I asked for watching to be done permanently, not for just a temporary period of time. But I'll read your links. Augnablik (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Augnablik: By default watchlisting is done permanently when you make an edit to an unwatched page (Preferences → Watchlist → Watched pages → Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Trying to add babel to my user page

Hi i am trying to add the babel language thingy and i am changing the background and border colour but i dont know the code thank you

why is colour spelled wrong SlightlyPopularPerson (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean, "color"? It is the computer version of the generally used spelling, "colour". Narutmaru (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Color is the Americanised form of colour; it's the form that's recognised in the template code. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)